Tridgell Uses Plugfest Against Microsoft

inkslinger77 writes "Andrew Tridgell helped the European Commission's defense of its 2004 Microsoft antitrust ruling at the Court last week by talking about Plugfest, and revealing Microsoft's lack of participation. In an interview after the court had adjourned for the day, Tridgell explained that for the past six years Microsoft has boycotted the event, where engineers from around the world meet up to test their software for interoperability. "

Comments

And?

[Deadguy2322]

It seems to me that, if it were any other company, skipping a voluntary conference would not be that big of a deal.

Stands to reason

[stjobe]

for the past six years Microsoft has boycotted the event, where engineers from around the world meet up to test their software for interoperability.

Of course they have.

Primus: They don't have to go, it's a voluntary event.

Secundo: They don't want their software to interoperate with anything else than their software.

Tertio: Profit? As in "What's in it for Microsoft?"

So, it's perfectly reasonable of Microsoft to "boycott" the event. It's what you'd expect them to do.

Re:Stands to reason

[Entrope]

Sure, it's what we would expect them to do. However, it supports the claim that Microsoft does not care about interoperability and wants to illegally leverage its monopoly in some areas to dominate related areas as well. It is a strong clue that Microsoft software fails to interoperate -- if it worked well with others, sending a few engineers for the relevant two-week test session would be a cheap form of PR and would totally defuse complaints about interoperability.

Re:Stands to reason

[davecb]

stjobe wrote:Secundo: They don't want their software to interoperate with anything else than their software.

Interestingly, Microsoft initially wrote public RFCs about the protocol, licenced it to AT&T, sponsored the plugfest initialy, and, if I reccollect correctly, flew Andrew to the first one or two.

It's interesting they have backed so far from what they once proposed as "Common Internet File Service" (CIFS).

Arguably, their tactic was to embrace the IBM-/Microsoft-developed protocol, now it's to extend and deny. I'm not sure that's a good thing to be doing in front of a court of law (:-)).

--dave

Re:Stands to reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Tertio: Profit? As in "What's in it for Microsoft?"

Well, as the EC courts are soon to prove, what's in it for microsoft is that interoperability of their software is very closely linked with their legal rights to do business there.

Nope and in america owning a southern flag ain't

[SmallFurryCreature]

Nope and in america owning a southern flag ain't illegal, if you are however on trail for hanging a nigger, eh fellow black human being, then it can be used to demonstrate motive. Or something. Ask a lawyer.

MS used to go to this event that promotes interoperability. Then it stopped. EXACTLY at the moment MS started to think it could make a mono-culture with its operating system. "Your honor, goes to show intent". Watch law and order sometime for the precise term.

How to change a heart?

[redelm]

While the MS absence at Plugfest might well be nice evidence, unfortunately it will disappear: MS will go next year so no-one will be able to use it against them. But they'll send lawyers, or disempowered Linux sandbox employees. And nothing will change.

Unfortunately, MS quite simply is utterly contempuous of all courts. They do not accept that the courts should have any authority over them. They don't believe that antitrust is "real" law that should be obeyed. At best, it is a hazard to be evaded.

I do not know how to change the philosophy of such a corrupt organization. Perhaps jailing Bill Gates for 6 months on contempt charges might help. More likely not, as they will see it as arbitrary and capricious. Everything I've seen says MS has an extremely strong internal culture that resists change.

Re:How to change a heart?

[TubeSteak]

They aren't contemptuous... it's just that their profits are greater than the fines they pay. It makes sense from a business perspective to continue ignoring certain laws.

Once that dynamic changes, they'll stop breaking laws.

And it would take more than sending Bill Gates to jail for 6 months. All that would accomplish is to change the corporate structure such that he doesn't get personally smacked by the courts again.

Nope...

[Svartalf]

While it is filesystems involved, it's not the same kind- with Tridge involved with testimony, it'd be more networked filesystems and the servers that provide them. And, NO, MS isn't very open about any of that- to the point that they make it nigh impossible to do so. It's no surprise they don't attend Plugfest- it would show them to be as non-interoperable as we all know them to be on this front.