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.'"

Comments

ask a billion people

[yagu]

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):

But a Commission monitoring trustee, one of several nominated by Microsoft, as well as competitors and a technical review committee gave Microsoft's documentation scathing reviews. The trustee called it "fundamentally flawed. "

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.

Re:ask a billion people

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do people always assume microsoft is doing something bad?

Experience?

Re:ask a billion people

[just_another_sean]

I don't think that's Microsoft's decision to make. If an EU court and the commission deems a document confidential then it should remain so. There are number of items related to the SCO/IBM litigation that I would love to have a look at but the courts, under advisement from both parties, make these items confidential.

If Microsoft is going to show so little respect for the EU and the Commission then I don't really see how they expect to work with them diplomatically over settling this.

Re:ask a billion people

[h4rm0ny]

Well I live in the EU and if my courts are making judgements, I want to know how they reach them. I have no doubt that Micro$oft are doing this because they think they will benefit. But by my value system, I benefit too, so good on them.

Re:ask a billion people

[rhizome]

• you mean this letter?
• or this one to its customers?
  
• another
  
• still more
  

Re:ask a billion people

[Criterion]

"Why do people always assume microsoft is doing something bad?"

Historical evidence, perhaps?

Re:ask a billion people

[just_another_sean]

Don't get me wrong, I see your point. And I'm all for openness and transparancy. But coming from MS? Excuse me while I search for ulterior motives. I guess what I was getting at in my previous post is that in legal proceedings there are sometimes good reasons to seal things from the public. If the Commission mandates that something be sealed then MS should honor that, from a legal standpoint. Now after reading the article and then some comments on this I believe I had it wrong earlier and that the EU has sealed it's side of things but never mandated that MS seal theirs. So, if that's the case, then MS didn't do anything wrong here and I agree that in the spirit of fairness maybe the EU should open up too.

But, bottom line, MS didn't rush to publish everything they could about the US antitrust suit on their site. You would never even know it was going on if you looked to MS as the only source of information on it. I just can't believe that their motive is anything but an attempt to build up some artificle sense of outrage from MS fans worldwide and make the EU look bad.

Anyway, I'm in the US, not the EU so I admit I am probably spouting off without enough knowledge on the subject. Mistrust of MS at this point goes a long way toward biasing my opinions.

Re:ask a billion people

[Locutus]

Can't wait til the book(s) come out. Remember when Microsoft started those two "independent" groups and they started publishing books about how bad the DOJ vs MSFT case was for the US consumers?

I hope this also sends more signals to others who attempt to license, partner, negotiate, etc with Microsoft. They'll do anything to get their way. Anything. IMO.

LoB

Re:ask a billion people

[MightyMartian]

Which is fine by me. I'd like to say Microsoft stung with massive fines. If the American government doesn't have the balls to shut down this monopoly, someone else. May Microsoft be torn into multiple pieces, and Gates and Ballmer, little Napoleons that they are, finally sidelined.

Re:ask a billion people

[Richard Steiner]

I would rather see a fountain of WISDOM... :-)

Re:ask a billion people

[Omnifarious]

History has shown that every single move Microsoft has made, especially in the legal arena, has been a cynical ploy to advance their cause by either lying, not telling the whole truth, or telling the truth at just the right moment.

That's why Microsoft is widely considered to have won the anti-trust trial in the US. They got a punishment that's so full of ways they could weasel out that against Microsoft it's utterly toothless. The only punishment that would've had any chance of working would've been structural changes and behavior mandates that had very clear, simple wording along clearly stated punishments for non-compliance. There would also have to be paragraphs of explanations detailing ways in which the clear simple words weren't to be creatively misinterpreted.

So, I can only see moves by Microsoft, especially in the legal arena, as cynical ploys. Anything they say about them isn't to be believed. The only thing to look at is what advantage they think they'll gain by doing it.

Two can play at that game...

[advocate_one]

I'm pretty sure Microsoft won't want the evidence that the EU commission holds to come out in public...

Re:Two can play at that game...

[pla]

I'm pretty sure Microsoft won't want the evidence that the EU commission holds to come out in public...

Microsoft already rolled over and explosed its soft pink belly, while the EU just kept on attacking.

The EU complained about WMP, Microsoft gave them "XP N"; The EU responded by whining that, surprise surprise, no one wanted it so Microsoft hadn't satisfied their conditions.

The EU complained that Microsoft needed to allow interoperability with its formats, Microsoft offered to make source code available (their WSPP program); The EU responded by whining that source code takes work to figure out, so Microsoft didn't go far enough to promote interoperability.

And let's not forget the endless threats of fines and the legal one-sidedness of the entire issue ("Aww, you need another week to find those 250,000 pages spread across 80 facilities on four continents? Tough").


So, what should Microsoft do? If someone seems intent on still kicking you once you go down, you have nothing to lose by fighting back, even fighting "dirty".


I certainly don't count as a Microsoft fanboy or apologist, in general, but as regards their battle with the EU, it just looks like the EU won't accept anything short of Microsoft writing their compentition's software for them (and even then, if people still chose the "official" Microsoft product, I don't think the EU would let it drop).

Re:Two can play at that game...

[Secrity]

The EU complained that Microsoft needed to allow interoperability with its formats, Microsoft offered to make source code available (their WSPP program); The EU responded by whining that source code takes work to figure out, so Microsoft didn't go far enough to promote interoperability.

Source code is a result of implementing a specification. Formats are defined by specifications, not by proprietary source code.

Re:Two can play at that game...

[advocate_one]

oh come off it... we DO NOT WANT SOURCE CODE... seeing it taints you and makes _any_ code you write potentially dangerous. Not to mention the ridiculous NDAs you have to sign just to get to see the stuff... the source code is completely useless to the SAMBA project and any other OSS team. Microsoft know this, but they're grandstanding and hoping the general public don't know... no one wanted XP N because Microsoft made pretty damned sure the OEMs wouldn't take it up... I'd bet my last dollar that behind the scenes Microsoft was making sure the OEMs didn't. Of course finding that evidence will be pretty hard... it'll have all been verbaly delivered in meetings on golf courses etc. where no notes were taken...

Re:Two can play at that game...

[geminidomino]

oh come off it... we DO NOT WANT SOURCE CODE... seeing it taints you and makes _any_ code you write potentially dangerous.

That's no more true of Microsoft's code than it is of the GPLed code if you regularly work with non-GPLed projects.

Re:Two can play at that game...

[NickFortune]

So, what should Microsoft do? If someone seems intent on still kicking you once you go down, you have nothing to lose by fighting back, even fighting "dirty".

You reckon? How do you define "seems intent" in that case? I mean Microsoft certainly aren't "down" here, and all the EU seem to want is for Microsoft to supply the interface documentation that they already agreed to supply, with a level of detal deemed sufficient by a body of experts Microsoft helped choose. That doesn't sound much like an intention to "kick them to death" to me. So I'd guess that if you had a point, it would have to boil down the question of intent.

To be fair, I have to conceed that the folks in Redmond may have a different picture of what the EU intend. The trouble there is Microsoft's apparent corporate paranoia. It doesn't seem to take much to convince them that they are locked in a titanic life-and-death struggle with a mighty foe and that dirty tricks are therefore justified. Alas, these titanic adversaries tend to include startups like burst.com and Sendo, and even students like Mike Rowe . A fellow could be forgiven for thinking that "looking at me in a funny way" constitutes "intent to kick to death", at least in Microsoft's book.

Which is, of course, one reason so many people are reluctant to cut them any slack at times like this.

Re:Two can play at that game...

[pla]

Source code is a result of implementing a specification. Formats are defined by specifications, not by proprietary source code.

Still in the wonderful rose-tinted world of academia, eh?

I used to think that as well. In the "real" world, you consider yourself truly blessed to have the vaguest skeleton of a spec to code to, and if you have a slow week a few months after finishing the first released implemenation, you flesh out that skeleton with what you did.

In over ten years of professional coding, I've had the joy of working to a basically-complete (if not 100% accurate) functional specification exactly twice.

Re:Two can play at that game...

[jZnat]

All of it is due to copyright, so nobody is specifically to blame here but the copyright lobbyists...

Re:Two can play at that game...

[geminidomino]

No argument here. I've just gotten a bit weary of the whole "mind-poisoning" argument.

Aim, Shoot Foot !!

[Akoma The Immortal]

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.

Re:Aim, Shoot Foot !!

[gstoddart]

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.

Do you mean they could be morally incensed enough to switch their document format?

Or they could be morally insensitive enough to switch their document format?

The latter would be ... odd.

Re:Aim, Shoot Foot !!

[gstoddart]

I don't know why I'm replying to an AC, but, NO, I mean incensed.

From Webster:

Main Entry: 3incense
Pronunciation: in-'sen(t)s
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): incensed; incensing
Etymology: Middle English encensen, from Middle French incenser, from Latin incensus
1 archaic : to cause (a passion or emotion) to become aroused
2 : to arouse the extreme anger or indignation of

So someone could be sufficiently incensed to change their document format as I offered in my previous post.

Re:Aim, Shoot Foot !!

[jZnat]

Maybe he meant "incentive" as that would make most sense in context.

Put another way

[overshoot]

1. Microsoft wants to put their version before the public while the ECC is stuck keeping much of theirs under confidentiality wraps.
2. Microsoft has decided that there's no remaining downside to flipping the ECC the bird.

Conclusion: go for it.

Re:Put another way

[sane?]

2. Microsoft has decided that there's no remaining downside to flipping the ECC the bird.

"Microsoft: You are banned from selling any software in Europe for the next three years"

I don't think they will, but for Microsoft the potential downside of pissing off those in nominal control of a huge marketplace has no end. In theory Bill could end up in jail, and he might get arrested and released 'just to send the message'.

I get the feeling that the dumb games they have been playing are going to come back to bite them hard - it won't be forgotten.

Re:Put another way

[pembo13]

They are just lucky that I am not on the EU commitee. This surely would piss the hell out of me.

Re:Put another way

[RockModeNick]

They would NEVER threaten that ban - in fact, I'd say microsoft threatening to totally withdraw product sales and support from europe would be more a threat to european interests than microsofts.

Re:Put another way

[Zak3056]

They would NEVER threaten that ban - in fact, I'd say microsoft threatening to totally withdraw product sales and support from europe would be more a threat to european interests than microsofts.

I'm unsure how copyright law works in Europe, but I would imagine EU member nations could respond by passing laws that remove the copyright protection enjoyed by Microsoft's products in their countries.

Two can play the scorched earth game.

Re:Put another way

[Anonymous Coward]

in fact, I'd say microsoft threatening to totally withdraw product sales and support from europe would be more a threat to european interests than microsofts

They can't do that - shareholders wouldbe all over them when Wall Street starts devaluating MSTF due to losing a large percentage of their revenue. I'm pretty sure they would also be wide open for lawsuits if they don't pay back the licensing fees collected for the period they won't be providing service (remember the 'rent our software' model?) I'm sure Wall Street will be thrilled to see such a big cut to MS's pocket.

Nobody wants a trade war over this - it's like a big game of playing chicken, let's see who pulls off first.

Re:Put another way

[general_re]

I'm unsure how copyright law works in Europe, but I would imagine EU member nations could respond by passing laws that remove the copyright protection enjoyed by Microsoft's products in their countries.

At which point they are in violation of the Berne convention and about a dozen other IP treaties they've signed off on. Not that MS is really going to withdraw its products, but if, hypothetically, they did, the EU would either have to let them go, or watch the entire worldwide IP system fall apart. Considering that European companies make money from copyrights too, they really don't have much of an incentive to do that.

Re:Put another way

[general_re]

Compulsory license is nothing new.

Compulsory licensing is not the same as copyright revocation, which is what was proposed above.

Re:Put another way

[pallmall1]

Instead of removing copyright protections, why not just invalidate shrink-wrap and on-disk EULAs?

Re:Put another way

[general_re]

All I'm suggesting is that there's enormous incentives on both sides not to let it get to that point. MS does not want to stop doing business in Europe, and Europe does not want it to appear as though the prosecution is politically motivated. Not least because if it's political over there, it becomes political over here, and no US administration is going to sit back and simply allow the EU to steamroller over US companies without at least appearing to be evenhanded about it all - not this administration, and not the next one either, regardless of who's in charge. Microsoft could, obviously, give a shit about European public opinion, but if it begins to look like piling on, they can and will appeal to the American public to pressure the US government to become involved. Which it will, to the detriment of all involved.

Re:Put another way

[SillySlashdotName]

in fact, I'd say microsoft threatening to totally withdraw product sales and support from europe would be more a threat to european interests than microsofts.

Let me see...

Microsoft withdraws product sales and support from the EU.

All those countries either buy a competitors product, or Open Source products.

Suddenly, in the parts of the world that do any business with the EU, a need for compatability with the systems and applications used in the EU (NOT Microsoft suites and applications) emerges. Companies and individuals doing business with the EU start moving to MS competitor products or Open Source products BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO.

With no need for Microsoft products due to the many products arising to fill the void left by MS, and given the track record of Microsoft security (excuse me, I just spewed soda from my nose...) more and more people turn from Microsoft.

Haven broken the monoploy MS has tried so hard to retain, MS has to start competing on a level playing field, and nothing I have seen shows that they are capable of that.

Microsoft withers away to a has-been, what-ever-happened-to company.

Yup, I think you are right, more of a threat to european interests than Microsofts.

NOT!!!

Re:Put another way

[cyber-vandal]

The EU has a population far larger than the US. Can you say shareholder lawsuit?

Re:Put another way

[gnasher719]

'' They would NEVER threaten that ban - in fact, I'd say microsoft threatening to totally withdraw product sales and support from europe would be more a threat to european interests than microsofts. ''

That's what you think. If Microsoft disappeared from the face of the earth forever, there would be about two weeks of panic. After two weeks, Dell would ship half of its computers with Linux, and the other half with MacOS X (can you imagine how quick they would have a deal with Apple? ). After six months, Microsoft would be forgotten.

Re:Put another way

[mr_walrus]

>> 2. Microsoft has decided that there's no remaining downside
>> to flipping the ECC the bird.

> "Microsoft: You are banned from selling any software in Europe
> for the next three years"
>I don't think they will...

well, how about "Europe governments, you won't buy microsoft products or
    continue to use microsoft formats."

or how about "Microsoft Products are subject to extra luxury VAT of 50%."

or how about "Lower levels of government are prohibited to spend
    their transfer moneys on 'foreign software'."

Re:Put another way

[ClamIAm]

This is what I was thinking as well, but more along the lines that Microsoft probably has to submit tons of documents during these "disputes". So they basically are playing politics here, similar to governmental politicians, where they release some of the "facts" to try and make themselves look good. And in this case, they get the added benefit of claiming the EU process is "opaque" and that releasing some of these documents makes them saviors of democracy or something.

Re:Put another way

[maxpublic]

At which point they are in violation of the Berne convention and about a dozen other IP treaties they've signed off on.

No, they wouldn't. The Berne Convention doesn't apply to organizations involved in criminal activities which refuse to comply with local laws. If MS doesn't abide by the EU strictures the EU is well within its international rights to declare MS such an entity and seize the source for distribution.

This ruling would have no effect on any corporation other than MS (except, perhaps, as a warning). The EU would make it perfectly clear that MS is being charged with criminal acts and punished accordingly.

Although it's absolutely ridiculous for anyone to think that MS would be destroyed if it could no longer sell its products in Europe, or that Bill Gates would ever see a day in jail. Europe doesn't have the might to enforce its rulings one foot outside of its collective borders, which still leaves 95% of the rest of the world firmly in Microsofts grasp. And the U.S. government would NEVER turn Billy-boy over to the EU for prosecution.

Max

Re:Put another way

[general_re]

The Berne Convention doesn't apply to organizations involved in criminal activities which refuse to comply with local laws.

Unless the law specifies copyright revocation as a penalty for criminal behavior, it's a violation of the Berne convention, which requires European countries to treat foreign copyrights and copyright-holders the same was as domestic ones are treated. No doubt you can point to the relevant portion of European law that specifies such a penalty, and give examples of when it's been imposed before.

Anyway, I understand, really - we don't like Microsoft. That does not, however, mean that we can simply make up any old extra-judicial punishment we like, whether it's revoking copyrights or public floggings, or whatever it is we imagine would satisfy our sense of moral outrage. And if the EU tries such a thing, this whole affair will get real ugly real fast.

Re:Put another way

[Bert64]

The damage and destruction would last a lot longer than that...
Think of all the people locked in to proprietary microsoft formats and protocols?

Admittedly it was incredibly stupid to get into a position of being so dependant on a single vendor, but now that they are many organisations would lose access to large amounts of their data.

Re:Put another way

[greenrd]

No they wouldn't. They'd still be able to use their existing Microsoft licenses - they just wouldn't be able to buy any more.

transparency FTW

[argStyopa]

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.

Re:transparency FTW

[An Onerous Coward]

Transparency is great. Is this the way to go about it, though? It depends on which documents they released. If they provided all relevant documentation, then I don't much care whether they violated some Brussels policy. But if they only released their defense, while their opponents are still obligated to keep the "evidence for the prosecution" under wraps, then it's hardly a blow for transparency in government.

All I can find is "Microsoft's Response to the European Commission," so I don't think I'm far off the mark. I hope the EC releases their side of things as well, so we can get both sides, but I'm pretty sure Microsoft (like most major orgs) thinks transparency is something you use when it's to your advantage. That means that either they believe in their case, or they believe the EC won't release counter-documentation.

Re:transparency FTW

[radarjd]

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.

I agree completely, and yet there are posters below arguing. Transparency is a per se good. Lack of transparency is good only in war -- and I mean real declared war where armies are attempting to destroy one another.

Legal proceedings should always be open to the public.

Let's turn it around, and say that SCO wants certain documents kept secret in their case. Is that something the slashdot community (if there is such a thing) would support?

Re:transparency FTW

[pembo13]

I am guess that this is not an option for the EU committe, wether they wanted to do it or not.

Re:transparency FTW

[Fishstick]

depends on which documents they released

assume you already know the answer to this, but just in case...

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/legal/02-23-06R esponsetoECSO.mspx

REDMOND, Wash., Feb. 23, 2006 - Microsoft is making available its formal response to the Statement of Objections issued in December 2005 by the European Commission.

The response, which was filed Feb. 15 in Brussels, details the evidence that Microsoft is in full compliance with the technical documentation requirements imposed by the Commission in 2004. It also details numerous ways in which the Commission had ignored key information and denied Microsoft due process in defending itself.

Microsoft also is releasing two independent expert reports by software system engineering professors who examined the technical documentation created by Microsoft.

Cover letter (.PDF file, 2 pages, 160kb)
Microsoft's Response to the Commission's Statement of Objections (.PDF file, 78 pages, 800 kb)
Annex 1: Compliance Effort Report (.PDF file, 5 pages, 116 kb)
Annex 2: MCCP Report (.PDF file, 13 pages, 177kb)
Annex 3: Finkelstein Report (.PDF file, 654kb)
Annex 4: Broy Report (.PDF file, 42 pages, 570kb)
Annex 5: Hirst Report (.PDF file, 13 pages, 1.7mb)
Annex 6: Thatcher Report (.PDF file, 6 pages, 116kb)
Annex 7: Criticisms Report (.PDF file, 17 pages, 200kb)
Exhibits to SO Response (.PDF file, 22 pages, 696kb)

...so, no. Just their side of the issue.

Re:transparency FTW

[shotfeel]

say that SCO wants certain documents kept secret in their case.

And they have. The final list that supposedly contains the details of the contested code IBM supposedly put into Linux was filed under seal. Only SCO, IBM and the court know what's in it.

Re:transparency FTW

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:transparency FTW

[hotdiggitydawg]

I say bring it on. Let's see the transparency from both sides though. Anyone else keen to see the EU reveal in painstaking detail their reasons for sticking it to Microsoft, raise a metaphorical hand...

Re:transparency FTW

[timeOday]

Selectively releasing private corresondence that is flattering to you, after editing out anything you'd prefer stayed secret (RTA), doesn't really qualify as "transparency" in my book.

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.)

Re:transparency FTW

[radarjd]

And they have. The final list that supposedly contains the details of the contested code IBM supposedly put into Linux was filed under seal. Only SCO, IBM and the court know what's in it.

Indeed, and my point is that SCO's insistence on such a thing is generally (on slashdot) regarded as a bad thing. Hence, transparency would be considered good there.

And more broadly, too often on /. if MSFT does it, it must be evil. It's simply not always the case.

Re:transparency FTW

[ScriptedReplay]

Let's turn it around, and say that SCO wants certain documents kept secret in their case.

Let's turn this around a little more and say SCO requested that some of IBM's responses should be sealed because they contain SCO's "IP" - while on the other hand spinning the PR as to say that IBM does not have a valid response. They know nobody's going to shot them down for it, as nobody has access to the response to check their claims.

For all you know, if the EC can't, for whatever reason, put forth their own version of the facts, the whole timeline MS is quoting might be fabulation - remember, the trustee they nominated themselves said they did not conform to EC's requests - and now the trustee is no longer performing satisfactorily and should be replaced.

Re:transparency FTW

[radarjd]

For all you know, if the EC can't, for whatever reason, put forth their own version of the facts, the whole timeline MS is quoting might be fabulation - remember, the trustee they nominated themselves said they did not conform to EC's requests - and now the trustee is no longer performing satisfactorily and should be replaced.

Regardless of how powerful Microsoft may be, it's still not as powerful as a foreign government, and the EU (or its commission) at that. I am not arguing that SCO is right. I am not arguing that MSFT is "good". I am arguing that 1) transparency is good; 2) if the Commission wanted to be transparent, it could be; and 3) generally, slashdot posters react emotionally with anger to MSFT, without reference to their actual behavior or logic.

Re:transparency FTW

[thrillseeker]

he EU cannot disclose the rest of the picture because Microsoft have a right to privacy that they have yet to formally waive?

By violating any confidentiality agreements of the proceedings, Microsoft may be ruled by the EU as having waived all rights to confidentiality of the proceedings. Pissing off judges is not the recommended way to get a ruling in your favor.

Re:transparency FTW

[ScriptedReplay]

I am arguing that 1) transparency is good; 2) if the Commission wanted to be transparent, it could be; and 3) generally, slashdot posters react emotionally with anger to MSFT, without reference to their actual behavior or logic.

1) obviously, but there are always exceptions. The best one can hope is transparency in the medium term (think Secret Service, where secrecy on th sort term is vital); it might seem like nitpicking, but blindly going to one extreme can be as damaging as blindly going to the other. However, it's not clear to me how relevant this is here, because

2) no, it could not be transparent if it goes against the rules of procedure. You can't go on making and unmaking procedure rules at will and still be taken seriously as an impartial authority. As I said, consider the possibility of MS deeming the documents in the Commission's possession to be private and not allowing them to go public. Whether this is just hypothetical or not remains to be seen. I'd be willing to give MS the benefit of the doubt if they weren't houting their openness through the roof. Remember before the last deadline when they made a big splash at a PR stunt about licensing source code for their interfaces while the EC people turned out quite surprised by the fact since (i) MS never told them about it officially and (ii) this was completely irrelevant for what MS actually had to provide (and did not)?

3) that is obvious - and works both ways. There's plenty of fact-free emotional reaction both pro and contra MS.

Make no mistake, MS ahs a lot to lose from an adverse ruling and they won't be fighting this fairly. If you think their opening of these documents was an honest move you're sorely deluded. Just look back at how the US antitrust trial went if you don't understand why.

Re:transparency FTW

[radarjd]

Make no mistake, MS ahs a lot to lose from an adverse ruling and they won't be fighting this fairly. If you think their opening of these documents was an honest move you're sorely deluded. Just look back at how the US antitrust trial went if you don't understand why.

Honest? I'm not sure what you mean by "honest". If you mean "free of ulterior motive", then no, it is not honest. Then again, I assign most actions by most people as having an ulterior self-advancing motive, and most certainly MSFT has one here.

However, that is not a bad thing. The number of acts that I ascribe to altruism is extremely small, approaching zero. In this case, the result of their action is a positive, and I'm giving them credit for that.

no, it could not be transparent if it goes against the rules of procedure. You can't go on making and unmaking procedure rules at will and still be taken seriously as an impartial authority.

Of course you cannot make and unmake procedural rules at will; however, the default for any public action should be that the documentation surrounding that action should be public. It's possible there's a very involved reason why in this particular case things are secret, and if Microsoft did violate a rule, I hope the commission punishes them for it.

Again, the point of my original post was not to defend Microsoft or the commission -- it was to point out that transparency is a good thing, and that somebody like IBM would be praised, while Microsoft is condemned. Or if the EFF did it. Or Google. Or whoever is the favorite (or villain)

Re:transparency FTW

[cyber-vandal]

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.

Re:transparency FTW

[juergen]

Transparent access to Microsoft source code would be very much in the security interest of their customers (and every other internet citizen) too, as MS would have incentive to fix broken stuff in the face of outraged customers.

But I very much doubt Microsoft would appreciate anyone posting MS source code. Seems like code development is very opaque there too.

And I doubt MS wants *all* of their EC papers made public either, and they'll for sure cry foul if the EC would publish the rest.

Re:transparency FTW

[MrTufty]

On the other hand, who elected those judges? Certainly as a European citizen I had no part in the decision making process, nor did anyone else. Hell, we didn't even elect the Commission - and they got their jobs back a day after being sacked for corruption.

I'd argue that whether or not MS are evil (I don't believe they are, but I'm entitled to hold my own opinions on that), this court seems determined to punish them anyway. I believe MS are entitled to see any and all documentation the court is using in making their decisions - the public less so, although it would be interesting. As I understand it that's why MS have released this stuff, because the EU are blocking them getting access to certain reports and letters that the court is using to make its decisions.

Re:transparency FTW

[argStyopa]

If someone releases what you feel is 'edited' content, there is one surefire way to fight it: release everything.

So if the EU feels that Microsoft is being disingenuous (which it probably is) then they can simply release all the paperwork and let people make up their own minds.

Again, it's a good thing.

Sauce for the Goose

[pmc]

'Transparency is vitally important in what can be a very opaque process in Brussels

But apparently transparency is not vitally important for APIs.

Re:Sauce for the Goose

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"But apparently transparency is not vitally important for APIs. "

I agree. Microsoft should treat its software the same way it treats its legal matters!

dirty tricks as usual.

[Stumbles]

Lol transparency indeed. But only when it serves Microsoft's own purposes otherwise it's take a hike.

Can't believe it!

[malsdavis]

"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!

Re:Can't believe it!

[tibike77]

And this one here was also priceless... "More broadly, the company suggested the Commission could look at the process used in the United States, where a court also found that Microsoft had violated antitrust law."

RIGHT. Excuse me for being an European and LAUGHING my ass off each and EVERY time I hear about ANOTHER idiotic legal experience from the USA. Next time I hear somebody start saying "US Legal system is better in/because/...", I'll just hit him over the head with a large brick and let him TRY to sue me.

Re:Can't believe it!

[Comatose51]

You can beat up an idiot in Europe? My God, you are advanced!

Re:Can't believe it!

[milimetric]

I don't know about other people but if you hit me in the head with a large brick I'd hit you with a large SUV. And I don't know about you, but I'd rather be sued than killed.

Re:Can't believe it!

[CompressedAir]

Are you seriously suggesting that a system where you can hit someone in the head with a brick and get away with it is better than one where you would have to answer for your action?

Getting sued would be the least unpleasant outcome of hitting an American with a brick.

Re:Can't believe it!

[Kadin2048]

I'll just hit him over the head with a large brick and let him TRY to sue me.

Maybe you missed the memo, but we have guns over here. Lots of guns. I would not recommend the brick thing.

Suing people is definitely the preferred method.

You mean like...

[FrankieBoy]

'Transparency is vitally important in what can be a very opaque process in Brussels.'

Kinda like Open Source, would't you say?

Hmmmm...

[Noryungi]

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...

Re:Hmmmm...

[danielk1982]

I thought in France one is guilty until proven innocent? =)

Re:Hmmmm...

[nagora]

I thought in France one is guilty until proven innocent? =)

No, that's in Cuba. You know, the little bit of Cuba in the bottom-right corner with the Stars and Stripes flying over it?

TWW

Re:Hmmmm...

[samschof]

That is a horrible idea. Microsoft has a responsibility to shareholders and the EU commission has a responsibility to EU citizens. The proceedings should be much more open. Imagine that the proceedings in SCO v. IBM, SCO v. Novell, and SCO v. everything that is good in the world were regarded as confidential. We wouldn't have Groklaw and the non-technical world might still believe there is something to the case. The accusations are made public, but it could be years before case is resolved.

The whole process should be more open. This isn't a case between individuals. It is between a government and a large corporation. I don't trust MS and I don't trust government. I want to know what they are up to. Obviously Microsoft's motives are not sincere, but openness in government should always be the goal. Furthermore, there are some basic free speech concerns. MS and its shills have a right to present their case to the public. Similarly, MS critics have a right to present the overwhelming evidence of MS wrongdoing. Do you really want the government to file a case against you and then tell you are not allowed to disclose anything they say in court?

Sam

Re:Hmmmm...

[nutshell42]

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.

Just because they took some random stuff and put it on the net when they had no right to do so? Who would have a problem with that?

Information wants to be free, yo!

Re:Hmmmm...

[drinkypoo]

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).

Actually, we would start screaming "freedom of the press!" since you didn't say anything about talking about it :P

But what I would start screaming is "bullshit" because opacity in government (or legal proceedings) is just a way to keep those damned citizens out of your hair while you fuck 'em over.

Re:Hmmmm...

[stevejs]

What is the legal rational for requiring that Microsoft keep it's defense a secret? To protect the innocence of the EU? Is there a reason to worry that people will think the EU is guilty of being sovereign?

Bill, meet Dale . . .

[Dausha]

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.

Re:Bill, meet Dale . . .

[KarmaMB84]

For breaking rules that are in place to protect the accused (Microsoft)?

This isn't government transparency.

[biendamon]

This is Microsoft releasing their own documents. Are you going to argue that Microsoft is the government?

pdf

[netinlet]

Anyone else find it interesting that they posted the documents in pdf format rather than word.

What about the reports?

[golodh]

Microsoft had published among others a few reports (annex 3 and 4 at http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/legal/02-23-06R esponsetoECSO.mspx) from very reputable scientific institutions that all claim that the EU can't reasonably expect "standalone" documentation that would allow e.g. a Linux machine interoperable with MS server.

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.

Re:What about the reports?

[KarmaMB84]

If the EU simply dismisses the evidence only because it's from an MS employee, then they will have shown they have no other grounds to refute it. That would be bad for the EU as it would clearly show they are railroading Microsoft.

The reality here...

[Osrin]

... 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.

Re:The reality here...

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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.

Re:The reality here...

[shotfeel]

... is that Microsoft's primary crime in this case is that it is not a European company.

And what's the excuse for it being convicted in US courts?

The only difference I see is the EC is actually enforcing the penalty handed down after the conviction. The US decided for the figurative "slap on the wrist" and are now trying to figure out what to do because MS isn't sitting still for even that.

Re:The reality here...

[EvilAlphonso]

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.

Which is one of the reasons why many political parties were against the European Constitution. It tried to change the balance of power between the Commission (unelected) and the Parliament (elected). Don't believe the "social" reasons they announced, most (if not all) of the points they used to get people to vote against the constitution were red herrings. They were already covered by previous treaties, they didn't need the constitution to be enforced. The few politicians who tried to point that out were soon buried under ad hominem attacks.

Re:The reality here...

[soulhuntre]

Microsoft's primary crime -- of which it has been found guilty and for which it has been sentenced -- was breaking monopoly rules.

This keeps getting trotted out on /. as if it means something. Obviously it is legally important, but it never ceases to amaze me how /.ers will hide behind the courts instead of thinkign for themselves in this ONE case...t hen ignore the courts any other time it's convenient.

Re:The reality here...

[David Off]

The reality is that the commission are quite ready to hand out huge fines to European governments and companies when they contravene the EC neo-liberal agenda. They probably go easy on Microsoft because they are seen as an arm of the current Republican administration.

Still you are right to ask the question but Microsoft are in trouble because their business practises contravene the norms.

Re:The reality here...

[obarthelemy]

" 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."

Mmmmm.... you mean the jobs of all those OS / Office Apps / ... companies that Europe has ... such as .... such as ????

Please, help me figure it out, so that I don't end up thinking you're feeding us boilerplate anti-europe crap.

Re:The reality here...

[hr raattgift]

In any case, you seem to have little understanding of how European "democracy" works. European Commissioners are almost entirely unaccountable. Many are political rejects

The President of the Commission is nominated by the Council of the European Union, which comprises the 25 member states, represented by the elected government of the day in each country. The directly elected European Parliament must approve the Council's nomination.

The remaining Commissioners are selected by the Council and the confirmed President jointly.

Consensus politics has led to a convention wherein the Council is expected to propose a Commission with a Commissioner from each member-state, prepared to act in the interests of the European Union as a whole, and to act as a counter-weight to the governments of the day in each member-state as necessary. In particular, Commissioners are not supposed to take directions from the indivual member-states, especially not the ones from which they hail.

This results in the Commissioners from each member-state generally being people who have been in the leadership of an opposition or minority party, rather than the party of the government. Often this means "reject" politicians from a previous government.

However, the Commission is not self-selecting. It is selected by elected government officials in each member-state.

As to accountability, the Commission is responsible to the European Parliament.

A newly nominated Commission must be approved by the directly-elected European Parliament before its term can begin. The Parliament may withhold approval for whatever reason it wishes, and it has done so on a temporary basis at least twice.

The current Baroso Commission faced weeks of delay in confirmation by the Parliament, which insisited on changes to the proposed Commission. Those changes were made. In particular, Rocco Buttiglione and Ingrida Urde did not become Commissioners, and Laszlo Kovacs was moved to a different position (taxation and customs instead of energy).

The Commission can be removed as a whole by a 2/3 vote in the Parliament. This has been threatened a number of times.

The Parliament further asserts that it can remove individual Commissioners, however this has never been tested. The Santer Commission resigned in its entirety before the Parliament was able to agree on whether it could insist on the removal of Edith Cresson (then the Commissioner for Research, Science and Technology) on the grounds of fraud and corruption.

The Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe tweaks all of the above somewhat, increasing the relative power of the European Parliament. In particular, the Parliament is given clear and final approval and removal rights over each of the individual members of the Commission including the President; the Council must take into consideration the results of European Parliamentary elections when proposing a President; and the Parliament would become equal to the Council with respect to initiating legislation and giving direction to the Commission.

Whether and how the TCE will be established is uncertain at best, however it is clear that power is accreting in the directly elected European Parliament, and that it represents the best hope of removing both the real and perceived democratic deficit in the European Union. (MEPs are not uniformly good at being visibly democratic politicians, however...)

200 pages of documents....

[NigelJohnstone]

...explaining why they can't deliver 200 pages of documentation....

Fool me once, shame on you

[A nonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Fool me once, shame on you

[Tim C]

Why do people always assume that someone who doesn't speak badly of Microsoft is a troll?

Re:Fool me once, shame on you

[rm69990]

You're the one trolling, not him. He said nothing wrong, and you personally attacked him.

Re:Fool me once, shame on you

[Richard Steiner]

Because most of the time the accusation is correct.

While I always like transparency...

[SmackedFly]

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.

Clear

[umbrellasd]

a Microsoft rep said, 'Transparency is vitally important in what can be a very opaque process in Brussels.'

And I say, "Source code transparency of the OS is vitally important in any critical business process."

Hypocritical. Bastards.

Re:Clear

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

Why is open source the solution?

Honestly, I don't see why a company should be forced to expose their source code. A company investing billions into code has the right to protect their investment.

Should Mercedez, GM, Ford, BMW, VW, Fiat, Ferrari etc post detailed plans of every car and engine technology they design.
Should google disclose their indexing technology?
Should the US or EU post documents about every weapon they are in development or have developed.
Should an airplane company like AirBus post plans about the planes they make?
Should KFC post their secret recipe of 11 herbs and spices.
Why don't the EU "leaders" publish details reports about there day to day activities, lets just throw privacy rights out the window and force EVERYBODY to be transparent. Secrets are evil, apparently.

Honestly, Microsoft is being singled out as a company that apparently has no right to protect their intellectual property, yet this is a practices that many other companies swear by and could not do business without that IP protected.

If Microsoft is forced to expose their source code, then so too should Apple, why not show the source code for Sun's Java virtual machine for that matter, or Adobe's products, or Google, or etc, etc, etc. Why not make every video game open source and stop using proprietary media formats like DVD's and CD's and allow free distribution of movies and music.

Either you allow protected source code and intellectual property to exist, or you don't, period. Just don't give me that BS that Microsoft has to expose their source code and no other software company out there has to. While I do agree that Microsoft should be punished for anti-competitive behaviour, the path that the EU taking is just damn stupid and vindictive.

And why is Open Source the god damned friggin solution to the world's problems? Most Open source applications I have used work 80% of the time, but have about 20% imperfections and quirks in them that don't get resolved version after version despite the apparently thousands of "community" programmers striving to make it perfect. They take years to beta test and never get it quite right before a new version is released which is radically different then the last. While it may be free to distribute, usually the interfaces are clunky and the software is difficult to use, or, the just blatantly rip off the UI of some retail software product. I just tried out OpenOffice Calc for the first time a few days ago, frightening similar to Excel with little added innovation or identity, I don't understand why Micorosft doesn't sue for being blatantly ripped off. Open source is a hobby for most people, working on that while they earn an income from a real job. I cannot stand open source projects that beg for donations while distributing good ideas for free. I won't "donate money" to use software. I will gladdly pay for an application that works as expected with minimum hassle, but don't beg for donations. I will never donate a dime to open source software, sell me the fricken software and earn a real living.

I think the EU is being very unreasonable and highly targeted against Microsoft. Honestly, I think that Microsoft should just pull the Windows OS from the store shelves of EU countries and end this fiasco and circus. The EU would be pressured very quickly by its citizens screaming to get Windows put back on the the store shelves. Microsoft is not obligated or forced to sell their products to EU countries, and if the EU can't stand having an American company sell products that dominate on their country men's computers, then either ban the software outright or dump billions into EU companies to make an alternative (just, don't base it on Unix or Linux, write a new freaking OS for a change, linux derivatives are getting really stale considering they never last or become successful). The EU is hoping Microsoft to expose their source code for free so that some French or German company can rip off Microsoft's ideas and create som

Re:Clear

[YU Nicks NE Way]

Except that Microsoft's response to the EC's demands was exactly what you asked for: source code availability.

Re:Clear

[mr_walrus]

>Except that Microsoft's response to the EC's demands was exactly what
>you asked for: source code availability.

it's not "available" if you are considered tainted after viewing it and no
longer allowed to work on any technology remotely similar.

Re:Clear

[azureice]

Well said. I'd mod you up if I had any points left. Open source is a good thing, but not for everything. Some things just have to be closed source. I've been reading numerous comments here that encourage MS to leave the EU and then "Open source will dominate and everyone will forget about windows in 6 months". Yeah, because open source is *so* perfect, everyone will be perfectly willing to relearn how to use a computer. Open source has it's place. What I'd seriously like to see is a new x86 compatible operating system, closed source, developed by an independant company, and be used as a real alternative that works on current hardware. OSX x86 does not count for this.

Nope, makes perfect sense

[Opportunist]

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.

The "I" in API..

[Tominva1045]

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.

Re:The "I" in API..

[just_another_sean]

I think what the parent poster is reffering to is the (alleged) hidden APIs in Windows. You know, the ones that give say Word a slight performance edge over Word Perfect...

Sure, we don't need or usually even want to know how the underlying implementation works but if your going to create an API, why two? One for you and your crew and a, um sub-par, one for everyone else? How is that "transparent"?

Re:The "I" in API..

[pmc]

I'm talking about Section III(D) of the antitrust judgement:

"Starting at the earlier of the release of Service Pack 1 for Windows XP or 12 months after the submission of this Final Judgment to the Court, Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and OEMs, for the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product, via the Microsoft Developer Network ("MSDN") or similar mechanisms, the APIs and related Documentation that are used by Microsoft Middleware to interoperate with a Windows Operating System Product (emphasis added)."

and to say that MS has been dragging their feet in providing this information is an understatement.

Re:The "I" in API..

[mabhatter654]

The European one went further than that though. The European court process is much better at getting to the heart of a matter and not being waylayed by legal panderings like the US courts are.. that's a very frowned upon thing over there. What the EU wanted was a consise, correct documentation of the communciations APIs that could be FREELY available without "strings" attached. I.e. they wanted exacty what the Samba team needs to perfect their tool. What MS gave was everything BUT that! They tried writing Half-true documentation, when that failed they tried releasing tons of Soruce code with lots of fees and licensing attached like they did in the US. The EU won't be BS'd. They didn't ask for developer access to windows CODE, they wanted specs. Properly documented and usable specs to interface with Windows servers. They asked the RIGHT questions and know exactly what they want, MS knows this too and doesn't want to play along. They are right about one thing, the EU did ask for the "keys to the kingdom" because all MS has going for it right now are arcane file types and protocols. The truth is that MS probably doesn't HAVE such a document at all due to the way they operate so this is probably a lot of work.. to cut their own throats.. how ironic!!!

Oh, the irony

[onlyjoking]

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.

BIG MISTAKE (Re:ask a billion people)

[Ossifer]

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...

Re:BIG MISTAKE (Re:ask a billion people)

[psicic]

I doubt it.... ....but only because American embassies have a habit of being behind really high railings, guarded by Marines and situated far enough away from their perimeters to make the throwing distance too far.

Re:BIG MISTAKE (Re:ask a billion people)

[Ossifer]

It was a symbolic statement, but have you ever tried to flick a CD? You can chuck those things farther than a frisbee(-brand flyind disc)!

Re:BIG MISTAKE (Re:ask a billion people)

[psicic]

Yes - and I intended to imply that both Microsoft and American representatives in Europe are more-or-less immune to geek-inspired outrage. The vast majority of people won't care enough to take action directly, and those that do won't make a huge impression.

Plus, it was also a musing on our American Embassy here in Ireland. I pass the American Embassy in Dublin every day - I'm sure their security is more lax then elsewhere - but to describe it as 'fortress-like' would not be wrong - surrounded by high railings, guarded by Marines with regular police patrols and situated well back from the road...and it's well ugly - think 1970's concrete-meets-turret-with-1970's-oversized-window s.

I mean...you'd understand the British Embassy being a bit wary - yet their building is just plain ugly(according to Prince Charles). It's patrolled by one of our police, though, and doesn't seem too bad.

(don't get me wrong, by-the-by, staff in American Embassy are fine - really accomodating when I was dewaling with them for work. Just design is a bit foreboding)

Reminds me of the anti-trust case in 2002...

[OwlWhacker]

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.

Influencing government

[truthsearch]

This certainly isn't the first time Microsoft has attempted to influence governments.

Re:Influencing government

[a_pseudonym]

I predict that within the next decade, we will see our first multinational corporation at real physical war with a national or multinational government.

Re:Influencing government

[mfrank]

Yeah, right. They can buy a couple dozen senators for less than the price of an F-16.

Now carefully planned assassinations, that I can see :)

The quality of trolling

[A nonymous Coward]

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.

Ummm...

[Kaenneth]

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.

Only entity worse than a corporation

[Shivetya]

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.

MacroHard

[Doc Ruby]

The king of closed source violates nondisclosure to demand transparency in their defense of their closed-source monopoly.

After they feel the hammer....

[gd23ka]

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.

Hm, PDF?

[anzev]

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?

The EU is to chicken too play that game

[I'm Don Giovanni]

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.

Re:The EU is to chicken too play that game

[Zaiff Urgulbunger]

500 free hours of tech support
To who? Who does that help?

and even the source code in question
Yeah, but not without strings! So it doesn't exactly level the playing field.

despite providing 1200 (or 12000, I forget which) pages of documentation
I believe that the problem is that the documentation is in some way lacking! That being the case (and I agree, it is subjective), then the EU would be correct in declaring is insufficient, since thats the whole point!

I think it's quite clear that no matter what Microsoft does, the EU commission will declare it insufficient because they want that cash.
Yeah, whatever. And... uh... its quite clear to me that, er, Microsoft wants to screw around in order to maintain their monopoly. Uh!
;)

Re:The EU is to chicken too play that game

[Keeper]

To who? Who does that help?

Anyone liscensing the documentation.

Yeah, but not without strings! So it doesn't exactly level the playing field.

Nothing is without "strings"; go into McDonalds and order a hamburger -- they'll tell you that you have to pay for it before they'll give you one.

What specifically do you object to?

I believe that the problem is that the documentation is in some way lacking! That being the case (and I agree, it is subjective), then the EU would be correct in declaring is insufficient, since thats the whole point!

Their "expert" took 48 hours to evaluate the 12,000 pages of documentation. Part of that evaluation included attempting to duplicate some portion of the specification.

Yes, that's right. They tried to write some massively complicated piece of code from scratch with no background or knowledge of the problem in 48 hours, failed, and then claimed the documentation was insufficient as a result.

Yeah, whatever. And... uh... its quite clear to me that, er, Microsoft wants to screw around in order to maintain their monopoly. Uh!

At least Microsoft's screwing is transparent. The comission's screwing happens behind closed doors.

Re:The EU is to chicken too play that game

[Zaiff Urgulbunger]

What specifically do you object to?
I believe its the case that there's a cost issue with gaining access to source code (and presumably the 500 hours of support), which means that things aren't level.

Don't get me wrong here, I don't expect MS to provide free support to anyone. I'm simply pointing out that if you have to pay for it, then it isn't free! And if the intention of the EU action is to make the field level, then this won't help. Thus, we can ignore this and concentrate on the documentation...

Their "expert" took 48 hours to evaluate the 12,000 pages of documentation. Part of that evaluation included attempting to duplicate some portion of the specification.

Yes, that's right. They tried to write some massively complicated piece of code from scratch with no background or knowledge of the problem in 48 hours, failed, and then claimed the documentation was insufficient as a result.
I've not seen the documentation myself so I can't comment. So either it was good documentation, bad documentation, or something in the middle. If it was bad documenation, would it take longer to establish this? Maybe not. Maybe it would be obvious it was bad.

At least Microsoft's screwing is transparent. The comission's screwing happens behind closed doors.
Yeah, maybe. But at the end of the day, who's judging this? Its not like the parties get to throw their evidence on the table and ask the public to take a vote! On the otherhand, I don't see any reason the evidence shouldn't be public.

Re:The EU is to chicken too play that game

[Keeper]

I believe its the case that there's a cost issue with gaining access to source code (and presumably the 500 hours of support), which means that things aren't level.

Access to the source code is an issue separate to access to the documents and the 500 hours of support. The EU has to approve any and all fees involved with liscensing the documentation, and thus far the EU has not issued an objection on that front.

I've not seen the documentation myself so I can't comment. So either it was good documentation, bad documentation, or something in the middle. If it was bad documenation, would it take longer to establish this? Maybe not. Maybe it would be obvious it was bad.

Perhaps. Given the lack of transparency and the EU's refusal to actually state what their issue is with the documentation (other than it is "unworkable"), and given that 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, I doubt it.

But at the end of the day, who's judging this?

A judge in a court of law serving the interests of justice.

Its not like the parties get to throw their evidence on the table and ask the public to take a vote!

As a member of the public, I get to decide how much weight I give the result. If Microsoft wins its appeal on this, would you feel better about it knowing that they really did do the right thing, or would you rather not know?

Re:The EU is to chicken too play that game

[Keeper]

I didn't hear Microsoft complaining when unelected bureaucrats were trying to force software patents on EU citizens against their will! Quite the opposite, MSFT lobbied aggressively in support of software patents.

This is exactly what I'm referring to. Microsoft was quite open in it's support of software patents -- you knew they were trying to screw you. All of the beaurocrats were making deals behind closed doors -- you didn't know if or how they were trying to screw you.

Re:The EU is to chicken too play that game

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:The EU is to chicken too play that game

[Keeper]

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.

Actually, I didn't. I've just referred to documentation. One of the GPs might have referred to source code, but that wasn't me.

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.

My understanding is that it goes with access to the documentation, as is stated in the response document.

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.

This was the standard the EU used (or so Microsoft claims anyway) to determine that the documentation was insufficient. They attempted to implement the "Add User" functionality in a domain server. They only examined documentation pertaining to this functionality and concluded that the documentation was insufficient because they were unable to implement that functionality from scratch in 48 hours.

You see some documents from Microsoft, and assume they tell the whole story? That seems out of character with the rest of your comments.

Given the lack of contrasting information from the other side, what else am I to do? My natural tendencies are to trust large powerful governing bodies less than I trust Microsoft. Of course, sometimes it can be fun playing devil's advocate to explore all sides of an arguement as well.

I fear, though, that you will have to get used to disappointment.

Too true, given that this particular body doesn't have to answer to many people ...

Test Suites

[steve_l]

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

Re:Why would Europe want to follow the US approach

[CDWalton]

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).

EU prefers cash over documentation

[I'm Don Giovanni]

You're referring to the "Broy" report, written by Prof Broy of the 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. The expectation that anyone could do so in only a few increments is simply unrealistic. Rather, normal industry practice is that specifications for such a system are developed and enhanced on an ongoing basis in an iterative process through interaction with engineers skilled in the relevant art and who actually use the specifications.

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.

Warm and fuzzies for Bill

[SgtChaireBourne]

Obtain a groundswell of support in EUROPE for a jumbo-sized AMERICAN company?

Hence, yet another ad campaign. This one, if you read past the misleading headlines, is meant to change MS' image away from being American, to being international or 'local'.

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.

More like...

[NotQuiteReal]

Hundreds of pages of documentation saying that they delivered a bunch of documentation and that it is not their fault if nobody understands it...

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...

Re:More like...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I know I would hate to have to promise that my documentation matches the current state of my latest software...

You'd think with hundreds of millions of dollars on the line they could afford to hire a few people to create said documentation if they wanted to comply. One thing of note, the independent commissioner who judged the documentation insufficient was a guy MS picked for the job.

Re:More like...

[Bert64]

Clear documentation is important...
If a protocol is still changing, then the software implementing it is still in pre-beta stages... Any release-ready versions should have stable protocols...

Documented protocols are incredibly important, without them the internet would not work.
I'm sure to access slashdot you're using at the very least:

DNS
HTTP
ARP
TCP
UDP
Ethernet
HTML

if not a lot more...

Why not

[twmcneil]

Just send Balmer to Brussels with a six-pack of chairs?

On being transparent

[SEWilco]

If transparency is so important, why are Microsoft document formats so opaque?

Re:Why would Europe want to follow the US approach

[D3m3rz3l]

Blankets laced with smallpox used against Native Americans come to mind.

Nah not very plausible

[NigelJohnstone]

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?

Re:Why would Europe want to follow the US approach

[icydog]

I'm not well-versed in history, so I'd like to learn a little from you. Specifically, could you please:

1. give me some figures on how many Mongolians were killed last time China invaded Mongolia
2. tell me why China invaded Korea?
3. tell me why China sided against South Vietnam?

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.

Microsoft taking its ball and going home?

[gatesvp]

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.

Re:Microsoft taking its ball and going home?

[markir1]

Imagine Europe if MS stopped producing tomorrow. Imagine the world if MS stopped producing tomorrow.

Hmm....let me think:

• Steady decrease in the number of bots/botnets
• Steady increase in the number of documents that are readable to all
• Steady increase in open, interoperable systems

And one could go on , but overall, many positive changes. Microsoft would have you believe that they are indespensible, but they are merely present.

Re:Microsoft taking its ball and going home?

[Pop69]

Of course, this would destroy the IT world as we know it.

No, it would CHANGE the IT world as we know it, probably for the better.

Much, much easier way out

[overshoot]

"Microsoft: You are banned from selling any software in Europe for the next three years"

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?

Now why the fuck did they do that?

[theolein]

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.

It ain't the first time

[websoon]

It ain't the first time people have sided with Microsoft, when the Eolas deal most of the people sided with them.

Sauce for the Gander?

[IBitOBear]

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.

irrationality

[Tom]

Seems Balmer got his way this time. Or maybe not.

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. /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.

MOD PARENT UP ! was Re:Can't believe it!

[o'reor]

I second this.

You know....

[xnixman]

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".

Re:You know....

[bobbo69]

Unfortunately for you, the reality is that the EU is the largest, richest single market in the world, and no serious global business can afford to ignore it.

Hmm ... too soon for that sort of accusation

[golodh]

Well ... I think it's too early to attribute nefarious motives to the EU. Besides, they aren't exactly cash-strapped, and imposing fines on an unsound basis would hurt their credibility. They know they are being watched.

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."

Microsoft's Position Summarized

[dotlin]

I spent some time reading Microsoft's 78 page PDF file from
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:

• 1. Hundreds of Microsoft employees and contractors have worked for more than 30,000 hours to create over 12,000 pages of detailed technical documents that are available for license today. In addition, Microsoft has offered to provide licensees with 500 hours of technical support and has made its source code related to all the relevant technologies available under a reference license.
• 3. 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 [...]
• 4. The Commission has denied Microsoft's fundamental right of defence by prohibiting fair and full access to the file underlying the Statement of Objections, including correspondence between the Commission and the outside experts upon whose evidence the Commission relies.
• 9. The Commission refused to provide Microsoft a meaningful written statement, apparently because it wished to demand a broad scope of documentation, while, at the same time, preventing Microsoft from placing that fact squarely before the CFI in the appeal against the 2004 Decision (as substantiated by statements discussed in later sections of this Response). Microsoft, although dismayed by this gamesmanship, itself stated in writing that it would supply what it understood the Commission was requesting.
• 15. The Commission did not comment upon the 11 December 2004 draft documentation for more than six months, and then ignored the 8 August 2005 revision for several months more. Specifically, it never challenged Microsoft's description of the scope of the documentation that was being developed and supplied to the Commission.
• 18. With regard to the scope of Microsoft's Technical Documentation, the Statement of Objections claims that Microsoft has provided only "on-the-wire" protocol information, that is, information relating to how the protocols communicate information between computers in a Windows network, such as how data must be formatted by the sender to be read by the recipient, and how the meaning of the information transmitted can be understood. The Statement of Objections asserts that Microsoft has refused to supply a broader range of information which would help explain why the computers in a network communicate particular information and how the communicated information is used and with what results.
• 20. The usability problems asserted by the Statement of Objections relate to its ease of use. According to the Statement of Objections, descriptions of the proper sequencing of messages communicated between servers are not provided in a way "consistent with the kind of description commonly used in the industry" and in some instances are not provided at all.
• 24. The Commission has also contested the significance of Microsoft's voluntary offer to allow licensees to use the actual source code for Windows, even though the Commission itself demanded that the Trustee must be given the same code in order to determine Microsoft's compliance.
• 28. The Commission cannot have it both ways. If it claims

Learning the hard way...

[bobbo69]

I would suggest Microsoft could learn a thing or two from the proposed GE-Honeywell merger, which the EC successfully torpedoed due to monopoly issues - indeed Jack Welch is on the record as saying the biggest mistake of career was underestimating the power of the EC. What finally buried that deal was the blundering attempt by George W. to influence events, which infuriated the Eurocrats, and made them determined to demonstrate that the Commission is not susceptible to intimidation.

Moral: threatening or intimidating the EC is a big mistake :)