Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft To Appeal EU Decision
An anonymous reader writes "News.com has an article on Microsoft's upcoming appeal of the EU antitrust decision. Their argument is essentially that they shouldn't be penalized for becoming successful in a marketplace." From the article: "Microsoft relies on the fact that its communication protocols are technologically innovative and are covered by intellectual-property rights ... [the company] had designed its Windows server operating systems from the outset to interoperate with non-Microsoft server operating systems"
If this is the case why are they complaining so much about documenting the protocols that would allow non-Microsoft software to interoperate?
A lot of people don't agree with the EU anti-trust, personally I think the EU is succeeding where the US anti-trust cases failed, they are actually punishing M$, hopefully, Microsoft will learn a lesson this time around.....I doubt they will though.
GeekServ Unix Consulting Services (http://www.geekserv.com)
Slammer and Blaster will hammer Sun and Linux servers just as much as Windows servers when installed on a Windows machine! :)
Seriously, though....wasn't it server<->desktop protocols that the EU wanted, rather than server<->server?
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
for reposting this story. Instead of going to CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, nytimes.com,, wsj.com, bbc.com, google.com, msnbc.com, go.com, netscape.com or any other arcane news site, i came here, instead, and got all the news i need.
"Microsoft To Appeal EU Decision"
Well duh.
I'm sorry but MS calls what the do interoperability? It's more like "make the other guy make it work and then break it occasonaly" honestly.
I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
Mark Twain
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
"Their argument is essentially that they shouldn't be penalized for becoming successful in a marketplace."
Why not?
I think they're making way more money than they need to. Just like gas companies. Being successful doesn't make it right.
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=2
READ.
Sure, they were designed to interoperate. They just weren't documented. Or not documented well.
Anything can interoperate with any other as long as the protocols are documented and those documents are made available.
Developers: We can use your help.
I can't imagine Microsoft appealing to anyone... ;)
We need open standards. We need interoperability. However, closed standards, proprietary formats, and DRM all serve to preserve marketshare by those owning the technology and serve to lock out any competition. Bid on a project and you can propose vendor A version 2000 or vendor A version 2003 or vendora A version XP.... Now that is competition, right?
no other source gives you this much (useless)information
Their argument is essentially that they shouldn't be penalized for becoming successful in a marketplace
:-)
Shouldn't that be "penalised" not "penalized" as I'm pretty sure they use English rather than American in the EU, certainally we do in my part
Anyhow it's a deliberatley misleading argument - they're not being penalised for being successful, they're being penalised for BREAKING THE LAW. They really need to understand that the EU sees them as CRIMINALS and not contributing members of society. If they don't want to be treated as criminals then they shouldn't willfully and deliberatley break the law.
They may be attempting to appeal that decision, however for the fact remains that it's not their success that has them up in the dock, it's their illegal behaviour.
Specifically for abusing their monopoly position to the detriment of the market - adminttedly the monoply does show they were successful but that entire argument is a fallacy.
the Commission's demands threaten Microsoft's intellectual-property rights.
What intellectual property rights ? The EU Commision didn't ask for the source code (copyright), and software patents have no legal value in Europe...
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
Ok. Sure. Now put down the crack pipe.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Inventing it? Like Al Gore "invented" the Internet? I think Redmond has confused "stealing and obfuscating" with "inventing."
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
When will Microsoft be defeated by the EU?
* From 1 to 6 months
* From 6 months to a year
* From 1 to 2 years
* From 2 and 5 years
* More than 5 years
* When CowboyNeal says it will
Place your bets, gentlemen. Place your bets.
MS' idea of 'interoperate' is 'works when such functionality suits us, and not a moment before or after'. Personally, I hope the EU does what the U.S. Gummit should have done in the first place...
--- Asking inconvenient questions for over 30 years...
they're being penalised for BREAKING THE LAW. They really need to understand that the EU sees them as CRIMINALS and not contributing members of society
Wrong again. Last I checked, heads of the EU didn't purchase jewels for jewel thieves or software from software pirates. However, they do purchase software and solutions from Microsoft. If they are the moral idealogues you claim them to be they should stop purchasing Microsoft software. Now.
They do see Microsoft as a contributing member of society. Overwhelmingly so. That's why they want things opened up, to contribute more, and on a different level (contribute not just products but knowlege.)
That, and, the big guy will always be the biggest target, be it by the little guy or the big government. A cool 2 million a day (iirc) in fines is nothing to scoff at for the EU. Probably finances a lot of hookers...
"Nothing in the file shows that the communication protocols in relation to which Microsoft will have to disclose specifications contain innovations"
IMHO Microsoft are just dragging this out as long as possible hoping the EU will get fed up.
If Microsoft is appealing on flagarantly fraudulant grounds that lie somewhere between making false statements to a court of law, deceptive advertising, and wilful abuse of the appeals system, then the EU should seriously examine if the law would allow them to increase the fine. Doubling it would seem suitable.
This needs to be settled, once and for all, in a way that is fair but decisive.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Not just Microsoft. Change the subject and pretend it was the subject all along. I've had a lot of conversations where I've had this done to me. Then there's the whole "Wondering why you're so upset for" bit, done here as "We shouldn't be penalized for being successful".
Microsoft uses Ireland as a base to filter billions of dollars every year (Through a wholly owned obscure subsidiary), through a solicitors office in Dublin. That office controls all license revenue from Asia, Europe and Africa. On average they contribute $50 per person per year to Irish economy, with our low corporation tax rates. The EU has FULL legislative power over this, what represents a huge chunk, if not more than 50% of MSFT's business, so unlike South Korea, Microsoft could not just leave (like they threatened to move to Canada), as most of their Intellectual Property rights are based here in Ireland. The E.U. probably holds the most power over Microsoft then any legislator in the world, its all whether they are bman enough to make Microsoft pay for their crimes.....
--- Duey Finster http://www.dueyfinster.com
See here where you tried to claim ownership of TCP/IP hrough the tried and
tested method of co-mingling functionality er
That really is fantastic (in both senses). Microsoft have seriously outdone themselves with that one. An upside-down toilet would be technologically innovative and about as much use as one of their communication protocols. At least it made me smile.
Burns: We're building a casino!
McAllister: Arrr. Give me 5 minutes.
1. We shouldn't have to give out documentation because we're not a monopoly
2. We can't give out documentation.
3. We gave out source code; that's the same as documentation
4. We can't figure out what exactly it is you want us to give out.
5. We don't need to give out documentation; the stuff is already interoperable enough.
6. We shouldn't have to give out documentation 'cause that would mean giving away our intellectual property.
This would be hilarious if it weren't so damaging to the marketplace. Could someone point me to the part of the EU's decision where Microsoft is required to sign over its intellectual property to someone?
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Microsoft's sure not appealing to me!
get whipped (you know you like it)
"Their argument is essentially that they shouldn't be penalized for becoming successful in a marketplace."
No, you shouldn't be penalized for being successful; you should be penalized for using your monpoly power to extend the reach of your products. You should be penalized for violating various antitrust laws in various countries.
Penalized is not an American word. Both forms are acceptable in Britain, the EU, or anywhere else. Look it up in the OED. (I'm a Brit by the way).
1. They have integrated IE so tight into Windows that removing it will cause Windows to break down.
Who gives a duck? Netscape is dead anyway.
2. They charge more than necessary for their products.
No problem, a coupon day or a few vouchers will be enough to clean this.
3. They abuse their market position and control the info on how to use the APIs to fight competition off.
Well, just document the APIs.
MS: Nah, that's a lot of work. Here is the source code, we hope it will give competitors a better idea than thousands of manual pages on how to improve interoperability with our applications. However, they will not be able to use this information without licensing it from us first.
Is there a way to get something from MS without having to pay twice for it?
crewing with those who wish to communicate with your operating system via your protocols is all part of INNOVATION! Abusing your monopoly position is all part of INNOVATION! Poor long suffering Microsoft, the Jesus of Software, so maligned by so many.
I don't think your, Jesus analogy will hold because Jesus' disciples were men of peace and unlike some of the people at Microsoft they would never have thrown chairs at the faithful.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
the eu just loves to take forever, that's part of what makes its gravytrain so appealing to so many that work within it.
Microsoft makes baby Jesus cry....
I'm pretty sure I'm the only one who actually hates the anti-trust suits against Microsoft.
I hate that the EU has made Microsoft ship separate versions of Windows: ones without Media Player or IE. But what if I use WMA and IE? These are important pieces of software that every computer needs. Every PC needs to be able to go online, and play media files.
Now, I don't use IE or WMA; but I used to. I'm smart enough to figure out how to find better programs online. But if I didn't have IE to begin with - how would I get new programs? What if I didn't know how to get other programs? What If I just wanted to use WMA and IE?
Now, Microsoft has used terrible methods of making themselves the best. They squash competitors with cheaper, inferior products, they've stolen and copied hardware and software designs from other companies, they push their products on retailers in a hostile and underhanded manor. But there are two things to remember here: Every other electronics and computer company does exactly the same thing, Microsoft's just better at it; and Microsoft is rarely on trial for being unscrupulous (most of it is illegal, but not all).
Whoo, signature!
DesireCampbell.com
I hate that the EU has made Microsoft ship separate versions of Windows: ones without Media Player or IE. But what if I use WMA and IE? These are important pieces of software that every computer needs. Every PC needs to be able to go online, and play media files.
It is very disturbing that you think that the need to browse the web and play media files by definition means a computer must have IE and WMP.
It's not about a company shipping Windows without IE or WMP. It's about a computer company being able to ship Windows with Firefox and iTunes.
Your message has shown just how badly needed the EU case really is, because Microsoft has managed to befuddle people just like you into thinking a choice that is not Microsoft is no choice at all.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This is exactly the problem. They said:
MS Windows server ===== works with ======> non-MS server OS
They did not say
non-MS OS ====== works with ========> MS Windows server
...and that is exactly the problem that they are being sued for
Don't be fooled by the doublespeak.- Paul
Except that many vendors SHIP the computer with alternate players, configurations, browsers, and such.
Great, but the original point was that the user needs a computer with a browser and a media player. Why are you blinded into thinking windows MUST ship with IE and WMP - even if other choices are also shipped? Why is the choice NOT to ship with that pair just as valid as shipping with Firefox and iTunes?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Microsoft should simply stop selling Windows in the EU. I mean, honestly. When citizens in the EU suddenly realize they can't get their favourite OS, period, then they will pressure the EU to drop their stupid frickin petty lawsuit and let Microsoft sell their damned software with the features they want!
The EU simply wants Microsoft to hand over all their source code so some French or German company can rip it off and sell a competing product to cater to the "individualistic" needs of the EU. That is it, pure and simple. European software companies cannot compete against Microsoft, so they are using the EU to litigate against them in the hopes of getting enough source code to use in their own failed products.
I am frightened, and we all should be, by the apparent power EU has over software in Europe. They seem to be able to dictate every aspect of the software, and if they don't like some aspect of your software use the courts to force you to change. This is not Microsoft being anti-competitive, this is a government organization using strong arm tactics to force software developers to cater to their outrageous demands, all in an effort to try and get EU companies to compete and hopefully surpass foreign software imports. This is worse then anything Microsoft has done, because Microsoft has never hidden behind a government in the hopes to succeed through litigation rather then innovation.
Sorry, I have no respect for the EU in this case. While I feel Microsoft has brought a lot of this on themselves, when you look at the supposed "merits" of this case, it is analogous to some snobby euro trash turning up their nose at you because your trying to speak their language without any skill. The EU doesn't like Microsoft because they are not European, period.
Microsoft should fart in their general direction and blow Windows off the shelves of EU retailers. Then we will see how quickly the governing body of the EU sucks up to Microsoft when European customers revolt because they can't get their XP.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
I happen to know of a certain lab at Microsoft. In this lab they try to find ways to:
a) Configure Windows boxes in ways which BREAK Linux and other Open Source os's interoperability.
b) Create subtle changes to Windows protocols which keep Windows boxes moving fast, but slow down things like Samba.
They are not friends of Open Source.
The bigger question is why do they need to protect the protocols and APIs? _IF_ their product is superior, who would use anything else? If someone made software that could communicate with Windows clients/servers (Samba makes a good example), and Windows is still better, few if any people would use Samba, and hence it would cease to exist.
So the question becomes- are they artificially making themselves the only player when something better is likely to arrise. The answer is probably a yes.
Releasing protocols shouldn't hurt their market share if they're the top player and have the best product and keep their product good. Now if they don't have the best product, but are keeping players out of the market by hording information, then an anti-trust suit is in order... oh wait...
-M
when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
between Microsoft's repeated appeals of the EU's case and flouting the law as it wishes? In practical terms anyway. Pay $2M /day fine until you fix this. No. Pay $2M / day until you fix this. I'll see your refusal of our appeal andraise you a new one.
heh,... maybe look at previous trial arguments made by M$ lawyers defending the company from IP infringements. I'd say, they themselves have done an excessive amount of "discovery" on behalf of the EU or any other yahoo(not the TM) looking for something to do.
Side note: Could it be agreed upon? "...sometimes, in the software industry, ownership and or use of, in combination of legal language, offers a burdensome amount of coordination, to which, a possible solution is GPL'ed software."
and if so... then "Where do you want to go today?"
Look to http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200604110 33758760 for what microsoft said in recent filings.
Reading those filings, Microsoft is saying "... but the users will have educated themselves on what our routines are doing, we shouldn't have to explain in OUR documentation."
The WWW was developed by Tim Berners-Lee at CERN (Europe)...
Oh yes, I'm sure the EU officials will be very pleased to hear yet another attempt of the "The name's Microsoft, we are just a bunch of idiots who don't remember what they have been told last week, let alone last year" variety...
Go, Microsoft, go (har, har).
Walter.
The problem with the car anology isn't that it's about taking parts from one car and putting them into another, it's about two different cars using the same road. Just because Dodge makes the Ram truck doesn't mean that it's impossible to drive it on the same roads as a Honda Accord would. The actual inner workings of the vehicles may be different enough where you can't swap parts between them, but that doesn't mean you must drive down a special lane specific to your manufacturer while heading to work, or suffer dire consequences. The standards aren't in how the parts interact, but in how they work as a whole along side other systems.
"its communication protocols are technologically innovative"
LOL
How do you find The US's own Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's ruling not fair, or not objective? Anti-trust laws exist, and microsoft's legal team knows about them. They are the ones that should have steared microsoft in another direction as they were gaining a monopoly position. If you don't want to believe it was microsoft's intention to break the law, then point at their lawyers for not protecting them from doing so. But microsoft's actions in repeatedly crossing the border of legality, dictates otherwise.
Anti-trust laws exist in Europe also and any EU bias can not interfere with justice. I would like to see evidence to the contrary, if you have any, that this is the case. Such evidence would help microsoft's case alot also. It is not a question of unfair laws, as it is a question of over-sized corporations having the money and thus the power to ruin the market in their favor. The EU has the obligation to protect its market, as did the US a couple of years ago. I would be interested if you pointed out how exactly Judge Jackson was wrong in his rulings after you actually read them. I don't think you believe that He was also biased against microsoft, in any way, do you?
Until then, I can only reject your post as unfair and and misinformed.
I don't understand their argument. Anti-trust laws were not made to punish companies but to protect customers. It doesn't matter whether they meant to practically monopolize several industries (altough, who are they fooling, when they start doing things like making their own image editors because they want to own every software industry, they can't really go around saying they don't try to monopolize.) All that matters is whether or not they actually do it.
One of the three companies you mentioned is a monoply, the others are not.
Things are different for a monopoly, that's just the way it is. It's to protect other software makers and allow resellers of the product to make choices of thier own.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley