Slashdot Mirror
EU/Microsoft Antitrust Case Delves Into Tech
oscartheduck writes "ZDNet is reporting on the Microsoft/EU case, and things aren't going too well for the software giant. The Commission is delving deeply into the technical issues surrounding the case. In addition to 'a record $617 million' that may well be leveled against the American monopolist, Microsoft is also standing accused of knowingly going forward with marketing practices 'that had already been judged illegal by U.S. courts when it was used on Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser.'" More from the article: " The founder of the Samba team of developers, which took years to create print and file server software that works with Windows, said his team is held back and playing catch-up. 'The tiny device I have here in the palm of my hand is the sort of product that could emerge if the information required by the Commission were available,' Andrew Tridgell said, holding a paperback-size storage server that he said could be turned into a work group server. Once it gives over the information, 'Microsoft no longer has a stranglehold over the world's networks,' he said. "
Now Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer and Larry McVoy will all hate you.
You must be doing something right.
... I'm not sure that the markets are as worried about this as Slashdot readers are.
That MSFT is gonna get kicked in the nuts for just more than bundling a mediaplayer and a browser.
It's time to finish their sleezeball business practises once and for all.
Windows has become such a huge part of European infratructure that we can no longer rely on a shady corporation.
perpetually dwelling in the -1 pits
Once it gives over the information, 'Microsoft no longer has a stranglehold over the world's networks,' he said. "
Uh, we got to make up our minds here folks. Either Linux is prevalent in the server market or Microsoft has the stranglehold there too. You can't have it both ways...
MS just work it into the price of the OS, so the consumer ends up paying for it anyway. So it basically turns into a consumer tax on copies of Windows.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
Microsoft is also standing accused of knowingly going forward with marketing practices 'that had already been judged illegal by U.S. courts when it was used on Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser.
And how exactly does US law apply to EU courts? Do EU courts ever use US laws? That would seem utterly stupid to me.
"We...submit that the (Commission) decision is an attempt to reconfigure (how the) market works by handicapping the leading player in perpetuity," Forrester told the court.
Perhaps "levelling the playing field" is a better way of looking at it. Look, I'm all for innovation and the right to make money off your ideas, but when it comes to computers and software, you have to bite the bullet and admit that people need choice. Admittedly, you want that choice to be your software or your server, and you can ensure that by dominating the market. Just as we've seen though, that makes you the target of everyone's wrath, whether from competitors, governments, or hackers.
So yes, Microsoft has a "right" to its intellectual property within reason, but when it come to interoperability, they need to rethink their stance. Ultimately they could conceivably eliminate most of their competition, but then that would spell the end of innovation on the grand scale, and force them to become even larger and more bloated than they are now. It's bad enough that one hand doesn't seem to know what the other is doing in Redmond, without consigning the rest of us to oblivion. MS needs to take its lumps, fix the interoperability/bundling issue, and move on.
Won't happen anytime soon.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
It would be nice if there was some sort standard compliance body that had to test/verify/pass such things (like the windows OS, NAS Appliances, Linux, etc) for interoperability and function before it was release (anyone else have a bit of fear over the forthcoming vista release?).
If the whole process was done right this sort of thing would have to kill innovation, as everyone would be able to 'extend' the standard (as long as it didn't break the original functions).
Can't we begin to 'enforce' standards... a sort of ISO-31337 certification of some sort?
You know, they could have said what the device was at the beginning of the quote, because when some geek type talks about the tiny device in the palm of their hand that may "emerge" if certain conditions are met, well, I just get the wrong impression....
FTA:
To achieve this so-called "interoperability," the Commission requires Microsoft to provide protocols--the rules of how to communicate between the so-called "client" computers and servers, and between the servers themselves.
But providing that information sweeps away Microsoft's intellectual-property rights, the company said.
"The Commission calls for functional equivalence," Microsoft lawyer Ian Forrester said, referring to the level of smoothness software needs to work well with Windows. "In order to achieve that, you have to go far beyond interoperability."
Possibly over-simplified and similar to the "Microsoft owns English" analogy, but if you invent a language, it's in your interest for people to speak it, so saying you're not going to teach people how to speak that language is like shooting yourself in the foot.
But I do like the quote from MS's lawyer about "the level of smoothness software needs to work well with Windows". :)
Just a minor correction but if everyone is communicating the same way, it does not make one platform have a stranglehold over the other. It merely means that they all are allowed to freely communicate.
For example, English could be considered an open standard and businesses from all over the world use the english language to communicate with each other regardless of who invented the language.
If English were proprietary and all businesses required it, every company that wanted to conduct business would have to pay a fee to whoever invented english.
Big diff.
Using your above statement within the metaphor, an open english language would not mean that China and Korea would instantly have an advantage in the market place over America (or England), it would just mean they would have equal footing to compete.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Ok, so if I get this right, if I create an interface to provide interoperability between my programs, and my programs become popular enough that people want to connect to them for reasons I didn't intend (and don't want to have to support), why is it a good business decision to release an API for that interface? It seems like that might shooting myself in the foot if I'm giving it to others who intend (as the linux community does) to supplant me with my own technology. To me, that's like bring a tank to war and then giving the enemy the keys to it. Flame on!
That the article mentioned SMB as the example where Microsoft is screaming, this is our IP, it is not. SMB was originally defined by IBM and an open protocol, Microsoft embraced and extended it until it closed the doors and now it is a Microsoft we own it and do not give the specs protocol. Guess who is on the payroll of the original inventor currently. Yes some of the SMB core devs. This behavior reminds me of someone who goes into a house throws the owner out, replaces the locks, the owner hires a guy who opens the locks, the thief goes to court and cries, this is my house, this guy has no right to go in there.
I get the distinct impression that Microsoft being tardy to release the documentation for their protocols isn't purely due to malice - or even not malice at all. I get the impression that things like this simply aren't documented INSIDE of Microsoft, and the original developers of the code have left, and MS staff are now busily trying to document a gigantic mass of source code.
I have direct experience of Microsoft having none or inadequate internal documentation (see my latest JE for the full discussion - http://slashdot.org/~Alioth/journal/133996). A quick precis is that we were working with the GINA in the NT 4.0 days, and we had an expensive support contract with Microsoft (IIRC, numbers bandied about were US $40K) because of what we were doing with the GINA. We actually ended up speaking to Microsoft developers - who couldn't answer our questions. We ended up reverse engineering the MS GINA to find out how to set everything up correctly. It was interesting to note that the publically available GINA documentation improved substantially a couple of years later when Windows 2000 came out. Perhaps the developers felt ashamed that their customers had to resort to reverse engineering because this expensive support contract fell flat.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
I'm not usually on Microsoft's side but screw the EU on this one. This is a simple case of extortion. I mean there is no downside to fine a US company. They are fining MSFT just because they can and its somewhat fashionable to do so.
It's the commission that is in trouble (read Cook's comments). seems like someone with half a brain realized that engineers built something that might be worth money and has value. Wow, that is some really shocking thinking!
If Microsoft don't like it, they can stop breaking the law.
When the Bush administration took over here in the US, a wave of corruption swept through this country like sugar through a diabetic, stunning our enforcement agencies and causing public insitutions like the Patent Office to roll over and play dead. The Justice Department, which had already won and had Microsoft on the ropes, dropped the anti-trust suit like a hot potato, settling for a useless slap-on-the wrist penalty.
Thankfully the EU has some *balls*, and is not emasculated by the cult-of-monoplists that has shredded the integrity of the US government.
Hopefully, the massive inflation that is snowballing due to price-gouging in the oil industry and the resulting collapse of the real-estate balloon market will shock the US populace into sweeping the Republicans out of both houses of Congress while they clean out the White House.
Then there will be a chance that the US Dept. of Justice will get back into the business of enforcing the law.
It is my dearest fantasy to believe that I will someday see "Ballmer and Butthead" being led off to jail in handcuffs.
"Sic Semper Path of Least Resistance"
Bush illegally spying on us, Microsoft illegally marketing, what next, gas companies illegally price-gouging us? Is there no one we can trust?!
It's a girl!
It's actually good to see that Europe and the US can be sensible in this way about trade law.
Pining for the fjords
FUD will die. Microsoft's Windows will become more stable (notice: more assumptions) since millions will be writting patches all over the place, and we'll see a golden age in computer...
Microsoft on the other hand will be sued out of life and limb.
Youre so representtive of the idiocy that plagues 49% of the population her in the US and a much higher percentage of the population in the EU.
The basic themes of the Association of Useful Idiots of which you belong are as follows-
Bush is the root of all evil and is simultaneously a stupid man incapable of anything worthy while at the same time so brilliantly evil holds sway over all aspects of our lives.
The EU has anything on their agenda remotely resembling fairness other than whats really going on...rampant anti-americanism of which they pursue via litigation against very profitable american corporations since the EU cant influence and American election in spite of their boy George Soros investing millions. FU EU
Microsoft occupies the position just below Bush on the evil scale regardless of the fact that they have made signifigant contributions furthering the cause of IT in spite of what its lame brained and leftist linux loving weasel critics say. Microsoft is evil to them handsdown and its ok for them (Microsoft cirtics) tp push their monopolistic agenda as the alternative, linux.
And then to throw in the USPTO as another one of Bush's evil conspircacies is just STUPID. That is a problem that has been brewing for years and you can blame that on one thing, lawyers.
Face it, your still smarting from 2000 and 2004, even if your a EU'bee. Guess what, get ready for more pain in 2008 and please keep it (idiotic rhetoric) coming, people like you help the cause more than they know!
P.S. The EU has balls...just a little reminder, the countries that make up the EU were the same ones that rolled over for the Nazis with the exception of the UK..the EU is the last place you'll find balls, unless your in Amsterdam of course!
Where open standards prevail, Linux has a sizable market share in server systems. Webservers, routers, etc, all work on open standards and there, Linux is for many the system of choice.
MS holds a grasp on the fileserver market for the simple reason that their clients, i.e. the systems that are dominant on the user end of a network, don't understand any network protocol but their own. And this is decidedly NOT an open standard.
That's where they have a stranglehold. And certainly not because their server system is superior to Linux. They simply have it because the client forces people to use a Server that is capable of delivering support for those "dumb terminals".
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Illegal in the US is (fortunately) not (yet) automatically illegal over here. I'm far from defending MS, but using a verdict in the US as the foundation of one here could quickly backfire.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Problem is that so many of these 'standards' suck. Even our ubiquitous HTTP/1.1 standard has no automated test suite for clients or servers to tell developers 'Yes your client and/or server meets the HTTP/1.1 standard including WebDAV.'. Same thing with Samba, NFS, afs, etc... So we are all left with strange protocol handlers with exceptions for specific clients or obscure workarounds, and using the customers as beta test subjects.
--jeffk++
ipv6 is my vpn
Don't get me wrong, that's not supposed to be an attack on YOU when I say, you don't matter.
UNLESS you start to have a monopoly.
If your tool is so dominant in the market that it's virtually impossible for another company to actually compete with you, this is of course beneficial for you (hey, you could charge whatever you want, you could do whatever you want, and people would STILL have to buy your crap), but the general user base and the industry itself will suffer from it.
Private monopolies are by the standard capitalist definition something VERY, VERY bad. Competition is the driving engine of invention, of development and of progress. Without it, why try harder? Why invent? Why develop? Why put ANY effort into it?
Monopolies are the epitome of stagnancy. Where do you think we'd be today in CPU technology if AMD didn't exist? Intel would dominate the home computer market. Do you think we'd have CPUs like the dual core? Why should they invest so much time and effort into making our machines faster without a competetor that would take away their sales if they didn't?
I don't even want to imagine where we could be today with OSs if there was any meaningful desktop replacement for Windows. I might be curling up in a li'l ball and whimper in pain.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
A stranglehold does not require prevalence. To analogize: I need not control your entire body to have you in a stranglehold; I need only have a tenacious grip on your throat that you cannot easily break.
When I first heard of the EU slamming M$ I was excited that someone finally did it, but it has turned into a farce. As much as M$ disgusts me I think the EU has over stepped its bounds. I think this is just the EU's way of America bashing. M$ is a big US company and the EU wants to take them down a notch.
The only thing stifling innovation in the EU is the consumers themselves. If the EU doesn't like M$, they should not #$%@ing buy it. I bet if the EU used all non M$ products it would be few short months before M$ was compatible with them and doing anything to win back the market. Just because the EU has not come up with a viable option to M$ doesn't mean they have the right to mold M$ into the product they want.
If you will excuse me, I believe sticking up for M$ has made me want to vomit.
~Kuazz
The bundling of Media Player was worldwide, including in the US where similar bundling was already found illegal. Therefore there is evidence that Microsoft was willingly in violation of some law in some country. Willfulness makes Microsoft looks like acting in bad faith and may discredit some of Microsoft's arguments.
IANAL
After reading a little about the case, my understanding was that the commission is asking Microsoft to publicize their protocol standards so that it encourages competition. As my understanding goes, competition is not based on knowing how your opponent does what he/she does; it is based on if you can do better than your opponent.
MS releases SMB protocol, the Samba group developed a public implementation, and lots of people used Samba. Great! But no where in this picture did MS and Samba reach an agreement. So, why would MS be liable to any changes to SMB or other parts of Windows that might affect the functioning of Samba? Even if publicizing such a change meant that it would address world poverty (I'm sure in such cases MS will publicize the protocol) let alone convert a matchbox into a file server.
I think such cases illustrates the lack of competitive spirit in modern day business. Instead of competing via innovation when unable to collaborate, it seems that people are more interested in just stealing innovations.
Furthermore, the commission's demands suggests that either
1) the competitors are stupid (Samba developers cannot be stupid!) and cannot come up with a novel idea that can surpass Microsoft's protocol standards? or
2) the competitors want a share of the pie they did not cook?
I will be surprised if any competent developer will agree to either of the above suggestions. Now, if Samba developers do indeed want to work on MS protocols and deliver a better public product, then why don't they work with Microsoft instead of working against Microsoft? If MS does not want to collaborate with Samba, then why not develop an alternative and convince the public that the alternative is a better choice? I know that it is easier said than done, but then, nodoby said competition was easy.
- Venkatesh Prasad Ranganath
"we were working with the GINA in the NT 4.0 days"
Was that the Veteran's Administration GINA?
You know, the VA GINA?
MjM
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
James Flynn of the European Committee for Interoperable Systems (ECIS) about the value of the SMB information:
...these information are not kept secret because they are valuable, they are valuable because they are kept secret.
...die Informationen würden nicht geheim gehalten, weil sie wertvoll seien, sondern seien wertvoll, weil sie geheim gehalten werden.
Source in german from heise.de:
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
Please note that at no point was Microsoft ever required to give out sourcecode. It was required to publish an API.
It was Microsoft itself that offered sourcecode (with licensing strings attached) just so it wouldn't have to publish the API specification. And perhaps also to confuse the issue ... so that half-informed people could make snide remarks about poor Microsoft being required to hand over their precious IP.
When I think of something like this, for some reason it seems like you can relate this a lot to Nintendo. For the longest time, they had a huge market share of the portable gaming industry. Hell, they still have a very good chunk. Who is forcing them to give Sony the ability to run DS games on the PSP? Where was Sega sueing to be able to run GameBoy games on the Game Gear? It's not Nintendo's fault that people want to use their technology. Sony doesn't have to have their PS2 work with the Xbox360 or GameCube. NES didn't have to work with Genesis. Should Blu-Ray be able to work in HD-DVD players? Should sony be sued for the information needed to make a Blu-Ray AND HD-DVD player in one? You think they'll ever give anyone the rights to be able to do that? Come on. Suck it up SMB.
But ... it seems that the EU has a healthy respect for the ability of US courts so determine matters of fact (as opposed to matters of law), which doesn't seem stupid at all.
If a US court, after about 3 years of discovery, expert witnesses taking the stand on both sides, concludes (as judge Jackson did) among other things that Microsoft:
- had a monopoly on desktop operating systems
- used this monopoly to prevent new entrants from entering the market
- lied in court when it stated that IE was needed for Windows to function (remember that video that was supposed to show Windows crashing after you removed IE? The video that was doctored to show the desired effect? Now I think that any ordinary person would have been prosecuted for perjury for pulling something like that, but apparently a company can get away with it.)
And if you further note that none of these findings were overturned on appeal ... then I believe it makes sense for a body such as the EU to take heed of it. And apparently the EU thought so too. How is this bad? What exactly is your complaint?
The Commission is delving deeply into the technical issues surrounding the case.
Oh, that is bad news for Microsoft. Its success in persuading people to do what it wants has always depended on their not understanding the technology very well.
Put the Capital Gains tax up to 60% where it belongs
Are you kidding me? You don't fix the country by taxing the people MORE. Who do you think pays the difference between 15% (now) and the 60% you propose?
It's us! Guys/gals like you and I. Along with the "fat cats" you want to slaughter, you take out a lot of people. If you own ANY stocks or have (almost) ANY retirement fund of ANY kind, then you are affected. And you want to take an extra 45% of MY money?
Things certainly need fixed. But this is NOT the way to do it. Find something else.
There were 2 main replies to my post:
- one stating that in all probability the protocol wasn't so much designed as "grown"
- on stating that this is the normal industry practice for evolving software: "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" (source: the "Broy" report, written by Prof Broy of the Technische Universität München)
This seems to point in the same direction as the parent post, namely that Microsoft honestly doesn't have a protocol specification for its client-server communication.
The next question is of course: does this get them off the hook? Is it sufficient for them to offer licenses for source-code that allows interoperability? The answer to this question can be "yes" or "no".
(1) Assume the answer is "no", it doesn't get them off the hook. Then the implication is that a software firm with a monopoly must always expect to be required to go the extra mile and produce interface specifications for its software ... even if its rivals aren't required to do so. Do I sense an iniquity?
(2) Assume the answer is "yes" it does get them off the hook. Then the implication is that any software monopolist can deny others interoperability with its systems with impunity ... all it has to do is to not document the API, so that the source code is the only avalable documentation. In other words ... kiss goodbye to any "fair competition laws" in the software field since they can be easily circumvented.
Neither option seems attractive, but on balance I think that in this case option (1) is the lesser of the two evils. We need a functioning market (as protected by fair competition laws) more than we need the absence of iniquity for all players.
Accountants, lawyers...and programmers are all grossly overpaid for glorified typing clerk work. Sure it's specific types of typing, but that's all it is, sit in an office and type crap up. Accountants have a love affair with the IRS, because the more stupid and complex the tax structure is the more they can "prove" their services are "needed. Lawyers have a vested interest into becoming politicians sometimes, because every season-a lot more laws on the books, "proving" their services are needed. Now we have software, year 2006. You can browse the web, send emails, type up reports, and serve that stuff from servers. But wait, we need more of that because so far we can't...err..we can...uhhh..what exactly do programmers do again? Oh ya! They type up new stuff that is *perpetually broken, never to be done correctly the first time, never a finished product*, "proving" that they need to keep typing up NEWER stuff to fix the old broken stuff, and the new stuff is just as broken, "proving" we need legions of them at high cost on into the future so that we can browse the web, send emails and type up reports.....
..weary..very,very weary, of paying huge sums for that "service". Software HIT a plateau serveral years back with "plenty good enough" functionality. You are going to need to invent new buzzwords and acronyms, even "web 2.0" and "ajax" sort of suck. It isn't good enough to justify the same high cost.
The "broken window" forms of business, gotta love it!
We need to spend trillions on the space shuttle! Why??? We need to resupply the International Space Station! OK....
We need to spend trillions on the ISS! Why??? The Space Shuttle needs some place to dock at! Oh...OK.......
No, the original poster was correct, operating systems and big programs are "worth" a few dollars, tops now, especially easily copied data bits on a piece of spinning plastic. 40 years ago, sure, semi-new field, still needed a lot of work. Now? Programmers are adding curb feelers and fender neon lights and wings on the trunk and fuzzy dice from the rearview mirror. When they get real scared they might be out of a useful job in an air-conditioned office sitting around typing up broken stuff they get busy and "invent" and "patent" muffler bearings.
The third world will be getting programming jobs at greatly reduced pay rates because we are very close to that is all it is worth, about the same as picking pineapples. Programmers right now are analogously at the same stage as blacksmiths were when cars started being mass produced. Still useful, but you could see the handwriting on the wall. We already have full functionality with what most people do most of the time with computers. Really, what is left? What is the single largest improvement in browsers since the mid 90s? Tabbed browsing? Ok, anything else really all that special special? We replaced the blink tag with FLASH advertisements. I would rather have the blink tag back....lemme see, you can look at images..check.. here sounds...check...hmm chat...always could that, hmmm what's new again... How about office type reports, what do we really need now and in the future that couldn't be done with say office 97? Email? How is it much different from 10 years ago, you mash a button you get your email, mash another button send one.
Yes.."professional labor services"..to keep reinventing the wheel and slapping new paint on the old clunker. Sometime soon people in general are going to get
Keep believing the opposite as you keep watching your jobs go overseas to the pineapple pickers. Pink slips have a way of bringing home reality.
But please go on. So you were saying that there's this airbus flying around and then there are some control towers controlling stuff and... uh-uh, yeah.
There are two rulings at issue. First they were ordered to produce documentation. They attempted to comply. Second their documentation was ruled to be inadquate and they were fined. It is this second ruling that is being appealed.
The difficulties of producing the documentation speak about the harshness of the penalty. The harder it is to produce documentation, the more burdensome the penalty of being ordered to produce it. This is relevant to the first ruling and was presumably resolved in the appeals to the original 2004 ruling.
Now that Microsoft are experiencing difficulty complying with the first ruling they are asking the court to revisit the penalty. One can see how a court, hearing an appeal on the second ruling, might listen to evidence that new and unexpected difficulties had arisen in attempting to comply with the penalty. The court might be persuaded to revisit the penalty.
One the other hand, evidence that the likely burden imposed by the penalty was known at the time at which the penalty was imposed and was available to the appeals to the first ruling will dissuade the court from revisiting the issue in the appeal to the second ruling. The court is likely to say that the issue of the appropriateness of the penalty is already decided and concern itself solely with whether of not Microsoft has complied.
The standard by which Prof. Broy is judging Microsoft is the normal industry standard for the quality of information in these circumstances: A company makes two products that talk to each other using a protocol and the customer wishes to buy one product from the company and the other from a third party. That is to say, Professor Broy has answered affirmatively to the question "Did Microsofts efforts reach the level of being grudging and inadequate."
I do not see how Prof. Broy's report is going to help Microsoft in court. The Judge must have heard in evidence that computer software is often let down by poor documentation. Producing documentation is a cost and companies will skimp as much as the market place permits. He will expect to hear that in response to a court order the company made a special effort to produce documentation the way it is supposed to be done, as taught in academic courses on software engineering. The judge might conclude that normal industry standards are what the company would have done anyway and understand Prof. Broy's evidence as saying that Microsoft made no effort to comply with the court order.
OHHHH!!! The holier than thou disdain! It buuuuuuurns.
What's it like to be good at making other people feel bad, but nothing else? You must be very unhappy.