EU Gives Microsoft 8 Days Until Fines

kaysan writes "European Commissioner Neelie Kroes has presented Microsoft with an ultimatum: Before Thursday next week, Microsoft must hand over all secret information on Windows protocols to its competition. Should the company choose to ignore this demand, it will be severely fined. Microsoft's history with EU fines so far amounts to approximately Euro777.5 million. Both linked websites are Dutch, but then again, so is EU commissioner Neelie Kroes."

Comments

I don't get it, who does this help?

[dada21]

While I know that what I say might come off as a troll or a Microsoft-fanboy (I am neither), I really don't understand the State in this situation at all.

First of all, the State creates laws which give some companies preferential treatment over ideas or the way a person can use their hands and mind to create something. We call these useless laws "copyright," "patent" or "trademark." The State is the only way to enforce these laws which govern how you think and use your body, it is impossible to cover these restrictions without force or the threat of force.

So companies go out of their way to try to protect their easily-distributed-and-duplicated resources. In a free market, if a widget was hard to make and reproduce, but everyone wanted one, it would be very expensive. If someone else discovered a way to mass produce widgets to outstrip demand, the price would plummet down to near $0. This is why software and music and content has a very small value compared to future work -- once the product is produced, it falls to worthless except for the law.

These companies that create content also know that even with the law, it makes sense to try to keep competitors from discovering how their products work. If I invent a new engine, I'd want to obfuscate the operation enought to keep my competitors from duplicating it, at least until I've made it more efficient. This is how manufacturing works -- you want to be the most efficient, but you also want to fight off competition who wants to be more efficient than you. This is why the market is great -- people work hard to make more efficient products.

Now, we have various competitors that are locked out of a market because the State decided to give preferential treatment to certain companies (in this case, Microsoft). Copyright, patents, trademarks can all be used to keep other people out of a given market long enough for a company to grow to a size that makes it hard to defeat. This is not what happens in a relatively free market (I'll say most deregulated). If Microsoft didn't have the backing of idiotic laws like the DCMA (in the US), overextended copyright, overencompassing patents, and overbearing trademark laws, other companies would have had access to compete many, many years ago. Microsoft itself was able to get into the information market from the start by developing products and acquiring products before the laws became unbearable in terms of the barrier to entry.

Microsoft is not a monopoly, it is just able to use the preferential treatment of the law better than their competitors. If you voted for the State, you are part of the reason that Microsoft has grown. Sure, some will say that they violated anti-trust laws, but those laws have enough loopholes to let any big company get around them.

Let's look at reality here. The State wants these fines to pad their own accounts -- they same laws will exist, and the same problem will repeat itself. This is basically a legal form of asking for bribes, and Microsoft will be happy to comply. Any changes Microsoft makes will only be enough to make the State happy, and the next run against them will be strictly for income for those making new laws. That income helps provide for more loopholes and better preferential treatment for the companies that can afford it. Microsoft is being forced to hand over "secrets" but those are past secrets -- not future ones, right? They'll just make new secrets, or obfuscate the old ones in new ways so that anything they share isn't useful in the long run (everything changes every 18months right?).

The problem isn't in the bribe money, the problem is that you all are voting for the State to be more and more powerful, which means that it can do more and more damage to your freedoms.

Re:I don't get it, who does this help?

[chill]

Microsoft is not a monopoly...

They are in the United States. They were legally convicted of being such in a court of law.

All else stems from that -- the rules are different for a monopoly.

Re:I don't get it, who does this help?

[Rogerborg]

> Microsoft is not a monopoly

Oh, beg to differ. Microsoft is a convicted monopoly abuser. And down comes your pretty house of cards.

Re:I don't get it, who does this help?

[dada21]

As for the anti-trust issue, it's because MSFT is doing things that are AGAINST THE INTERESTS OF THE CUSTOMERS all in a guise to raise their vendor lockin (through no valid technical need) to raise profits. Prosecuting anti-trust violators is about giving the customers freedom of choice, so they can decide how to invest their money. e,g, sure I'll run Windows, but I'd rather use Lotus, not Excel, etc, etc....

How so? The customers have about 20 different developers for spreadsheets, word processors, databases, browsers, etc. All my customers use Microsoft because the software is easy to use and is stable enough for their purposes. In fact, we haven't had one service call for thousands of desktops for a Microsoft add-on application in about 2 years, other than installation. We have repeated calls for OpenOffice mostly because of memory problems and a reboot is enough to cure it.

The basis of the anti-trust lawsuits or threats is unfounded. Did Microsoft promote vendor-lockin? I can say surely they did. So what? I can't think of any company that doesn't offer discounts for promoting that company's product over others -- everyone does it, and it is usually better for the customer in terms of price. You don't have to buy from vendors that are "locked in." Jiffy Lube gets a discount for promoting one oil over another, but there are many oil change places that provide many products. You can also do it yourself, as you can with Linux and other OSes.

My business has a vendor lockin process, too. For companies that buy our PCs and use our network infrastructure, we offer a huge deal on long term contracts (almost 70% off our hourly rate). Is that lockin? Sure, but the customers love it because everything is covered. Everything works out of the box, too, including very proprietary systems that tend to be difficult to install and maintain.

I don't see how this is anti-trust if you remove the State from the picture. The various governments created laws that allowed for this to happen -- it wouldn't happen in a significantly less regulated market because in such a market, various preferential treatment or paternalistic laws wouldn't exist, and companies that use those laws to their advantage would have to compete rather than distort the market.

Re:I don't get it, who does this help?

[Silver Sloth]

So if Ford created a car that would only use Ford tyres, only burn Ford petrol, etc. you would be OK with that? This parallel is not trivial. Over her in the UK there was an attempt by motor manufacturers to claim that new car warranties were only valid if the cars were serviced by authorised (read overpriced) dealers. The EU stopped that in exactly the same way as they are attempting to stop Microsoft from trying to prevent, for example, Open Office from reading MS Office documents.

So, who does it help? Me, the EU citizen. I may not be the greatest EU fan but they've got this one right.

Re:I don't get it, who does this help?

[dada21]

Okay, but you could say the same thing about physical property rights that you just said about "copyright," "patent" or "trademark." (Usefulness is a matter of opinion.)

You are right about that in some ways, but the way I see it, there are vast differences between physical property and intellectual property -- in fact, I'd say they're not even on the same level.

My belief in physical property rights comes from the thought of being able to better that property and maintain it. I find land that is unused, I develop it in some way (farm, natural resource, home, office, whatever) and I maintain it. That is my land from a physical property stance. I have my body, I have my tools, and I have my land. If I use my mind to channel those 3 physical properties to make something that duplicates what you've done, the new physical product is something I can sell. Also, if I have techniques to make your physical property better, you can hire me to maintain it.

But intellectual property means mind control, plain and simple. If I have a certain way to mow a lawn, or a certain way to design a toilet, or a certain way to put musical notes together in a certain order, all those are covered by thinking and action. If you can't mimic my actions more efficiently than I can, you can hire me to do it for you (mow your lawn, create your toilet, produce music). If you CAN mimic my actions more efficiently than I can, why should you hire me? Just do it yourself -- unless the State says you're not able to think or act that way because I have a right to those thoughts or actions, dig?

If I create a series of musical notes and put it on a disc, you can buy that disc if it is more efficient than you making those notes yourself, or discovering another copy of my disc and using your mind, hands and tools to duplicate the disc. The cost is the labor, not the initial creation. The guy who mows the lawn had to learn how to mow the lawn, but you don't license that lawn mowning -- you pay me for future labor or current labor, not past labor. Mowing a law, installing a toilet, and writing music or software are the same actions in terms of labor. No one cares what you know or what you did in the past as long as you can do something more efficiently than they can TODAY.

Re:I don't get it, who does this help?

[tomstdenis]

Why must the file formats be secret?

Why must the tools avoid standards in their respective fields? (typesetting, ISO C99, proper W3C XHTML...)

Why must the tools only work in Windows?

etc, etc, etc....

The problem with Microsoft is that it creates these tools which only serve to further insider goals (e.g. Visual Studio only exists to sell Windows) then pumps it with shady deals and the like. Why must I get Windows with my Dell Laptop? Why can't I get a discount to go with a blank HD? (note: I think Dell is a lousy anti-trust violator too)

In a truly free market, you'd see Visual Studio (which is an awesome kit) that runs under Linux/BSD and can be bound to other compilers (e.g. Intel CC, GCC, etc). In a truly free market, you'd see Office work in Linux/BSD and use well documented file formats so people could create 3rd party tools for working with the data... In a truly free market, Windows would strive for UNIX/POSIX compliance underneath so that programs written for it (under the GUI level) would be more portable, ...

In short, Microsoft writes software that looks shiny, attracts users (usually by first taking away choice, then motivation), then locks them in with tools that are not interchangeable or portable.

I'm sure if the PC revolution occurred WITHOUT Windows being forcefully bundled with EVERY SINGLE PC we'd see a different history here.

And for those who say people can buy their own parts and build a PC, imagine if every car was bundled with an engine that only ran with Shell fuel. Sure you could build your own car, but is that really realistic?

Tom

Re:I don't get it, who does this help?

[Trelane]

So if Ford created a car that would only use Ford tyres, only burn Ford petrol, etc. you would be OK with that?

I would be fine with it. The problem comes when they do that and are super-dominant (aka "are a monopoly").

In the presence of real competition, there are many other cars that run just fine and do the exact same thing or (more likely, since it'd decrease overall costs for everybody concerned and only takes one producer to do it to get the ball rolling), the competitors would be more interoperable, and so Ford would be committing corporate suicide. Heck, there'd be a whole add-on market to convert Fords to Chevys and back and forth (provided they each tied you to their own platform), since there would be a large market for each car and hence a large demand for interoperability.

But when a single player is super-dominant, they are practically immune to market pressures. If they make their car uninteroperable, the add-on market would be tiny, since there would be little demand from the drivers to switch car vendors. Sure, there'd be some, but not very much at all, and they'd be struggling to make a living. The other cars could interoperate as much as possible, but nobody would switch to them, because they'd be more expensive (economies of scale), and not able to interoperate 100% with the superdominant competitor (e.g. Excel macros in OpenOffice). Sure, they could maybe get up to 99% compatibility, but reverse-engineering the proprietary interfaces would require a huge effort, while (again due to their small market size) they're still strugging to survive. And since they're superdominant, almost all gas stations, roads, and service stations would only work with the superdominant competitor (the "ecosystem" built around the superdominant competitor), further excluding cars which don't comply with their proprietary interface 100%.

The real kicker, though, is this: to the driver, who Just Wants to Go Somewhere, is familiar only with Fords, and has learned all of the quirks of his/her current Ford, will find any competitor annoying due to its differences and (however minor!) incompatibilities, and will blame the competitor for the market situation!

Re:I don't get it, who does this help?

[Kenja]

"In a truly free market, you'd see Visual Studio (which is an awesome kit) that runs under Linux/BSD and can be bound to other compilers (e.g. Intel CC, GCC, etc). In a truly free market, you'd see Office work in Linux/BSD and use well documented file formats so people could create 3rd party tools for working with the data... In a truly free market, Windows would strive for UNIX/POSIX compliance underneath so that programs written for it (under the GUI level) would be more portable, ..."

No you wouldn't. You'd see software written for the platform that had the best chance of a high return on investment.

You'd see people wanting to protect their work so that outsiders couldn't take it and undersell them by not needing to recover devlopment costs.

What you're talking about is the oposite of a free market, where people are forced to support everyone and everything despite what the market demands.

Microsoft is a buisness, it exists to make money. If there was a market demand for Microsoft products on Linux/BSD they would exist.

Re:I don't get it, who does this help?

[tshak]

In a truly free market, you'd see Visual Studio...run on Linux...

No, in a truly free market MS is free to do their own market research and determine what platforms to support. In an idealists market a company would be forced to create products or alter products in ways which do not benefit the company.

Re:I don't get it, who does this help?

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't have to be, but it is the State that creates these secrets, not the company. Without ridiculous laws against reverse-engineering, and ridiculous patent laws, anyone would be able to dissassemble any file format and then write software to use that format. Your State prevents you from doing this and entering the market, hence prices go up and service goes down, dig?

That is NOT true in this context. I quote http://scientific.thomson.com/free/ipmatters/sbm/8 180036/ (yes it's a bit dated, but it shows the EU Comission's standpoint on reverse engineering, and i couldn't find a better source now in a hurry):

Further, the Commission was anxious not to extend its patent proposals into the field of copyright, which protects computer programs as 'literary works'. The Commission states that it wants to preserve and ensure the continuation of the copyright provisions whereby software developers are free to reverse engineer another's program without infringing copyright.

So somehow your libertarian logic is not entirely correct in this case; For some reason I fail to see software written using e.g. the Skype-protocol...

Re:I don't get it, who does this help?

[gravesb]

Legally, under the doctrine of claim preclusion, it is the truth, and there cannot be other opinions of it. If it comes up in court again, it is assumed that for the time period covered by the trial, MS was an abusive monopoly, and that can never be challenged.

Re:I don't get it, who does this help?

[Hijacked Public]

If I can improve your property even more than you can, should I be able to take it from you? Or maybe more accurately, should the State be able to take it from you and give it to me, since it was the State that gave it to you in the first place?

Re:I don't get it, who does this help?

[Ogrez]

And where is it you purchase your Microsoft electricity from? Where do you get your Microsoft computer cases from? I guess i could just say your analogy sucks... a better and more appropriate analogy would be ... What if Ford created a car and you had to use a Ford starter in it, or if you had to use Ford door pannels. Oh.. wait... you do. Yes there are aftermarket parts not made by ford, but those parts were made by a 3rd party who reverse engineered them. Parent post is correct, its laws that our lawmakers make like the DMCA that makes it illegal to reverse engineer most software. In the words of my hip and cool friends... dont hate the player, hate the game.

Re:I don't get it, who does this help?

[Foofoobar]

Speaking as someone who works in a mixed environment, everytime SAMBA makes any progress, Microsoft makes major changes which effectively locks peope out all over again. Being able to get your MAC machines and LINUX machines to be able to fluidly talk to your Windows machines would be a nice thing. As is, Linux and Mac make it very easy for other machines to talk to them but Microsoft deliberately hides, and obfuscates its technology making it difficult to interface with if you are not also running a windows machine.

Aside from that, Microsoft has gotten in trouble in the past for using SHADOW API's. They tell competing vendors one way to interface with the machine and then use a better way themselves so all Microsoft's products run super fast and vendors products run slower and not as well.

These are all things that the EU is talking about and has been talking about. Getting our machines to play well together shouldn't be something that should have to be enforced. As engineers, it should be the obvious choice. So when you say you dont get it, maybe you don't understand why machines should talk to each other or share data with each other or work together. However working in a mixed environment, I'd rather not have to force our designers off MAC and our servers off LINUX merely because Microsoft can't play well with the other kids on the playground.

It's sad to think that a multi-billion dollar company like Microsoft still needs to be babysat.

Re:I don't get it, who does this help?

[bertramwooster]

Microsoft is not a monopoly, it is just able to use the preferential treatment of the law better than their competitors. If you voted for the State, you are part of the reason that Microsoft has grown. Sure, some will say that they violated anti-trust laws, but those laws have enough loopholes to let any big company get around them.

Even its supporters do not dispute that Microsoft is a monopoly. Moreover, Microsoft has been convicted of abusing its monopoly, which means that it has gone over and beyond using "preferential treatment of the law". Surely breaking the law is not the same as taking advantage of it.

What is the state then to do? Fining Microsoft is an option which it has pursued. The poster contends that the step is useless because Microsoft will make the minimal number of changes to comply and that is useless. But he doesn't suggest an alternative form of punishment. In the same post he states that Microsoft is not guilty of breaking the law and that the punishment is useless and serves no purpose.

I really wonder how it got modded "Insightful". Is it because the poster also says that DMCA and copyright laws are idiotic and also proclaims that he is not a Microsoft fanboy or a troll?

Re:I don't get it, who does this help?

[abigor]

"Without ridiculous laws against reverse-engineering, and ridiculous patent laws, anyone would be able to dissassemble any file format and then write software to use that format. Your State prevents you from doing this and entering the market, hence prices go up and service goes down, dig?"

Reverse engineering of file formats is legal. It is a very difficult process, particularly for highly complex binary file formats like Word and so forth. The reason why .doc compatibility sucks has nothing to do with "the State". Please stop trying to wedge everything into your paranoid political mold.

Re:I don't get it, who does this help?

[eno2001]

They don't have to be, but it is the State that creates these secrets, not the company.
Total BS. The state creates laws like the prohibition of reverse engineering because the state serves business far more than it does the people. And THAT'S because companies have been allowed to grow unchecked in terms of money and political clout. In an ideal situation, business should have NO political power at all. Governments should have no incentive to create laws in exchange for various favors from wealthy companies. And, realisticaly, there should be limits automatically imposed on the size and wealth of a company to prevent them from becoming more powerful than government. Either concentration of power in is a problem, but I'd still trust government to do the right thing before I'd EVER trust a private business. Currently the only reason for being in business is top make money. It's not to improve the quality of life for customers no matter what a company claims. They could start out that way with well intentioned people, but once they grow to a size where they are publicaly traded, the good of the customer is replaced by the good of the investor. The customers then become the product that the company is selling to the investors in the form of ever increasing profit. Even if there is a realistict limit to how profitable a company can be, the investors will always demand more or else they'll drop the investment. And THAT is the true problem. What it forces many business to do is find ways to make more money with no regard for how they operate in terms of ethics. Don't blame the government for the problem. It's a complex mix of interrelationships between business (the more powerful entity) and government (the more desperate entity) being driven in the end by the investors (the ignorant entity in terms of what's happening unethically behind the scenes to benefit them). Oh, and Ayn Rand was a knob.

Re:I don't get it, who does this help?

[lawpoop]

"Network protocols are easy to monitor and reverse engineer with the right equipment. Why can't people reverse engineer the interfaces and duplicate them in their own software? Oh yeah, the State says it is illegal."

This is false. It is legal to reverse engineer software and network protocols. It is also legal to duplicate them in your own software. This is what the samba project, the wine project, amongst many others, are based on.

Re:I don't get it, who does this help?

[lawpoop]

"You believe that physical property rights are different in that "people naturally respect them anyway". But I'd say there's the same general respect for the principle of "don't copy without permission"."

I disagree. People generally have respect for personal property -- you can't take something that doesn't belong to you. You wouldn't want somebody taking something that belonged to you.

However, digital copies, in the popular mind, work pretty much like knowledge, information, or word of mouth. You are pretty much allowed to repeat anything you hear from anybody to anyone you want to, at any time. People are chatty; we live in information rich cultures, where we are always talking, sharing, updating people, telling stories, gossiping, teaching, giving opinions, complaining, etc.

Contrary to the physical nature of personal property and ownership, sharing information benefits you. When you share information you don't lose it, and it costs very little to talk. Participating in an information-sharing culture gets you access to much more information than you could ever obtain on your own, for very little cost.

Re:I don't get it, who does this help?

[evil_Tak]

Reverse engineering of file formats is legal.

Apparently you haven't heard of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act

Re:I don't get it, who does this help?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I guess i could just say your analogy sucks... a better and more appropriate analogy would be ... What if Ford created a car and you had to use a Ford starter in it, or if you had to use Ford door pannels.

I agree his analogy sucks and so does yours. You both miss the same thing everyone misses when they make analogies in these monopolist threads. They always make an analogy, except they don't include a monopoly in said analogy. Neither you nor the parent included one. The reason for this is simple, monopolies are rare in the US.

So lets try this again, what if Ford was the only supplier of cars in the US and if you wanted a car you pretty much had to buy a Ford. Now, ford decides it wants to move into the fuel market. So they switch all Ford cars to use only Ford fuel.

Parent post is correct, its laws that our lawmakers make like the DMCA that makes it illegal to reverse engineer most software.

The parent poster does have a point, but it is really stretched. For example, the Samba team has done a fine job of reverse engineering and have not been stopped by the DMCA. Their main hurdle is not having access to the documentation for weird edge cases. You can argue our copyright laws are broken, and I'd agree. You can argue that the government should revoke MS's copyrights and I'd disagree. Copyright needs to be applied equally across the market. Making a special case is a bad idea, especially when laws on the books already deal with the general situation of monopoly abuse.

Enforce the antitrust laws against MS, just as they were enforced against other abusive monopolies. Copyright reform is a separate issue.

In the words of my hip and cool friends... dont hate the player, hate the game.

But that's just the point. The laws are not being applied to MS the same as they are to everyone else because MS has not been punished for their illegal actions. Even the EU fines are tiny compared to the abuse. The only real solution has to come from the US for political reasons and it should be to break up MS the same way the telephone monopoly was broken up. Give at least two companies complete rights to all MS's existing copyrights and trademarks. Forbid them from collusion. Competition will be restored in short order and everyone will benefit.

Re:I don't get it, who does this help?

[LinuxIsRetarded]

In a truly free market, you'd see Office work in Linux/BSD and use well documented file formats so people could create 3rd party tools for working with the data...

By your same argument, you'd see GM parts work in Hondas. So why don't they? And why aren't hefty fines levied against GM for not producing parts to meet all possible auto specifications?

Re:I don't get it, who does this help?

[Silverstrike]

I'm going to respond to a lot of things I see scattered throughout this thread, not just in the parent post. Let's start with "reverse engineering is illegal"

In the United States, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act exempts from the circumvention ban some acts of reverse engineering aimed at interoperability of file formats and protocols, but judges in key cases have ignored this law, since it is acceptable to circumvent restrictions for use, but not for access.[4] Aside from restrictions on circumvention, reverse engineering of software is protected in the U.S. by the fair use exception in copyright law. [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering/

No, it's not. Not in the US anyway, the DMCA actually leaves a loophole. That's that.

Now, can we please stop slinging around "State" like 1960's hippies saying "The Man"? It sounds idiotic. You need the state, whether you want to admit it or not. If you don't think you need the "State", go take a year long hiatus in a central African country. Once you see bands of militia marauding around, murdering and raping at will , with absolutely no resistance from anyone, come back and talk about how much we don't need the "State".

That is not FUD; that is very real. The human animal is a frightening creature, for it is capable of incredible acts of justification, especially when operating as part of a group. Almost any horrifying act can be justified, in the absence of rational discourse.

The State's entire existence is rooted solely in a simple premise: we give up freedom, in exchange for protection from each other, from nature, from everything. In this case, the "State" is protecting its people from a corporation's economic abuse. Fine, do away with government, maybe the market would shake out the monopolies somehow, but exactly what interest would a market entity have in keeping you alive, when the guy down the street decides its in his best interest to smash your skull in and take your TV? Certainly not your money, the guy down the street has it now, and can spend it just as easily as you could have. And certainly not your life, any two morons with 2 minutes of free time can produce more of that.

Alright, so we need the "State". Back to Microsoft, they are not propped up by any sort of governmental conspiracy that keeps them as the market leader. They hold that distinction by producing a good product.

Now, scoff all you want, mod me down to, but the Windows desktop, until maybe a few years ago, was the ONLY operating system viable for a "desktop" computer. Ubuntu Linux and OSX are relative newcomers to the party, and they are making good inroads so far, but lets not pretend that Microsoft is successful because they made an awful product that was only profitable because of government subsidies. Windows was (still is?) the be all end of Desktop operating systems for the average user, and Microsoft did earn that distinction.

However, and here's the rub, as the market leader, there MUST be some sort of check on their power. As we've seen, they are able to employ all sorts of nefarious means to keep their power. It's like any other monarchy, the power of the monarch must be checked, otherwise you end up with an autocratic despot only interested in increasing his own power, the people be damned.

They are not being fined to "pad" the EU's pockets. That is an absolutely absurd notion, since any business Microsoft does in their territory, is subject to tax. The EU gets their cut, fine or no fine.

Re:I don't get it, who does this help?

[j0sephlew1s]

I agree. I just hope that the EU goes after Nintendo and Sony next. I think it's so unfair that I'm forced to buy their game systems in order to play their games. I should be able to play them on my Mac! Sounds stupid, so does your argument! Why can't someone in the Linux community create an application similar to Visual Studio? Basically because they would starve. Your gas analogy is flawed. If you compared Windows to a type of fuel, let's say regular gas, then Linux would be diesal and OS X would be E85.

Re:I don't get it, who does this help?

[testadicazzo]

Wow, the discourse on this topic is always so painfully stupid and emtional. None of this anything to do with Microsoft vs Linux. It has to do with monopoly abuse, which is always harmful. Having a defacto standard is a good thing. Things like vendor lock in are obnoxious, but less harmful when there exists a viable competition. GM doesn't have a monopoly on automobiles, so there's no real point in levying anti trust suits against them. If GM, Honda, Daimler Chrysler and Volkswagen and whatever other major manufacturers out ther get together and do price fixing, this fucks up what little pretense of a free market we have, and screws everyone over. So we've made laws against that kind of behavior, because experience has taught us that this kind of this is just so goddamn bad for our economy. That's all.

Even if it had happened by accident, which it didn't, the monopoly would be harmful. Microsoft could have attempted to be a benign monopoly, and set things up so that other people could at least compete with them on NEW APPLICATIONS, but they don't even do that. They set things up so whatever becomes the next big thing, they are in a position to dominate it, because it's so damn hard to get interoperability information from them. And it's getting worse with Vista. It's not enough that they have the incredibly huge advantage of their monstrous cash flow and brand recognition, not to mention the expertise of the programmers who developed their software in the first place. No, they have to result to tactics which are plainly and openly illegal, preferring instead to subvert democratic processes. It blows my mind that people defend them.

I want to propose a new figure of speech, and I want credit for it: The "Microsoft Syndrome". Like the Stockholm syndrome, where victims of a kidnapping begin to sympathize with their kidnappers, the Microsoft Syndrome describes that process where victims of a corporate monopoly are so brainwased by that monopoly's marketing they sympathise with and defend them.

English article

[Aphax]

http://technology.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,194 8086,00.html

MS gives EU 8 days until no Windows

[elrous0]

Bill Gates responded "Okay, we'll just use our auto-update feature to turn off all Windows copies in every EU country. Hope you all know how to install Linux, fuckers!"

-Eric

Re:MS gives EU 8 days until no Windows

[Alioth]

Which would be extreme wishful thinking on the part of Bill Gates. Microsoft would be crucified by their shareholders if they did anything to even slightly endanger their existence in the European market - which has a population of almost twice the United States. Indeed, the shareholders could easily sue Microsoft's board if they were to take such an ill-advised act. Not to mention, the rest of the world would be scrambling to migrate away from Microsoft products so they don't get extorted in the same manner.

It would also demonstrate to the EU the urgency of which Microsoft's monopoly would need to be broken - so even the rumour of such a threat would be severely damaging to the value of Microsoft as a company.

Re:MS gives EU 8 days until no Windows

[A beautiful mind]

Sorry, but you're living in a dream world.

giving away all their valuable IP

There is no such thing as Intellectual Property. Europe does not recognize software patents, and as for copyright: it has a very narrowly defined (and abused) goal in law: to provide incentive. MS blocks that effort by monopolizing.

MS should simply call their bluff and cut Europe off completely from MS products for a few months

A few things would and wouldn't happen: first of all, existing installed Microsoft products wouldn't stop working. MS hasn't got a global off switch. Second: MS would still have to pay. If they would refuse to pay, they'd get all their assets seized in Europe. Third: Copyright treaties and law allows the government to free something from copyright if it's something of a national security interest. They declare MS's copyright void in the EU. That'd alone kill MS.

Even if that wouldn't happen, Europe would have an accelerated migration OFF Windows, which, as the biggest union in the world in terms of GDP and having the Euro as a better alternative to the dollar, would cause a cascading effect in all businesses reducing the demand/marketshare for Microsoft products worldwide.

This would be nothing short of complete suicide on behalf of Microsoft. They are not that stupid.

Re:MS gives EU 8 days until no Windows

[Knuckles]

How is properly documenting their APIs and protocols "giving away all their valuable IP"?

Slashdot: Now in Dutch!

[NineNine]

Slashdot continues its editorial nosedive towards irrelevance as they now ignore their own FAQ!. I wasn't aware that there is a significant portion of the American Slashdot reading public that could understand Dutch. Interesting.

Why the Dutch?

[spellraiser]

A simple Google News search turns up a whole lot of items on this story in English.

What-EVER!

[overshoot]

Well, it looks like Bill is going to have to turn over some pocket lint.

Face it -- the fines aren't even petty cash. MS expects the Court of First Instance to rule in a few months, and it would be stupid to turn over information that can't be recalled before then.

At absolute worst, the fines are worth less than the ability to hold off competition for the same period; it's just part of the cost of doing business.

potentiial conflict of interest...

[krell]

" so is EU commissioner Neelie Kroes."

But what about his cousin Mie Kroes Offt?

I know how Microsoft can score BIG here . . .

[mmell]

simply stop marketing Microsoft products in the EU marketplace. No, no . . . hear me out . . .

Think about it - if Microsoft doesn't market Windows et. al. in the EU, the EU has no standing to impose fines on Microsoft. European customers will be obliged to purchase Microsoft products in the USA and to find a way to get their shiny new copies of Vista home (as I've never heard of a way to force a company to do business in a given geographic region). The EU will be forced be economic pressure to either 1) cave in to Microsoft, or 2) subsidize the vast number of businesses in Europe which will have to endure the nightmare of migrating their enterprises off of Windows onto some other solution. Even if the EU were more economically powerful than it is, I doubt that it could afford option #2, especially once the US government catches wind of things and slaps an export tax on it (which you know they would).

Of course, they could start running their businesses using OLPC laptops! That'd show those bullies at Redmond who's boss!

Re:I know how Microsoft can score BIG here . . .

[Slashcrap]

Even if the EU were more economically powerful than it is, I doubt that it could afford option #2

Before assuming that the EU is a relatively insignificant part of Microsoft's market which they could easily do without, you may want to work out the total population of the EU. Then calculate what percentage of the developed World's population (i.e. the people who actually pay for expensive operating systems and office software) it makes up.

Of course, being American you will probably first want to find an atlas and work out what country the EU is in.

Re:I know how Microsoft can score BIG here . . .

[Der PC]

What exactly would the U.S. government be putting tax on ?

Windows ? Nah, the E.U. isn't buying Windows according to your plot.

Linux ? But Linux isn't "Made in U.S. of A.".. They'd just buy SuSE Linux, or go ftp://ftp.funet.fi

Methinks the EU wouldn't actually be in such a bad shape, even if Microsoft really would stop shipping Windows to the EU. The already sold licenses are still valid ( although they'd be a virus trap on the scale of O(n$) once the patches stop appearing in the EU :) )

There would be a transition period, but business would recover soon enough and domestic solutions to POS, banking, TAX etc would appear. ( Although not an EU country, Iceland would suffer only for a brief period of time if Windows was banned. Banking and Tax returns are already multi-platform capable due to good back-ends, clueful programmers and a good browser

The EU might actually gain something from having Microsoft taken off of the market. Although it's only speculative, I think there's a lot of domestic tech-job-opportunities here :)

Re:I know how Microsoft can score BIG here . . .

[ledow]

Option 1: If it happened, it's not good for the EU at all (to be seen as toothless would let any monopoly run rampant). The EU is more than just a single unit, it's a collection of lots of countries - most of whom have absolutely no interest at all in seeing an MS monopoly. Plus, the chances are that it will end up costing an awful lot of "important" people in an awful lot of countries their jobs. Plus, currently, the financial incentive to the EU alone is worth continuing pursuing the case, even if it takes years and years to appeal.

Option 2: The MS software they had would not spontaneously explode, they would have at least until the end of support for XP/2003 (which is still a few years away) in which to migrate. The enormous inertia of dozens of countries migrating simultaneously will make this no more expensive than any other option (who's going to say no to doing one country's IT if they have sites in other countries that they can reuse their creations?) - sheer demand will mean that it would be worth creating an OS completely from scratch with real funding at a fraction of the money that they would STILL be making from MS's fine. And the final target would be complete independence of any company to prevent a future re-occurence. Even if expensive, that will save a lot more money in the long run.

If MS do decide to pull out of the EU (unlikely given the figures - at least 50% of their revenue comes from there), then the EU has already stated that it would be perfectly happy to say bye-bye to them. Nobody is MAKING them do business in the EU. However, they would still have to resolve prior, historical trading issues. So annoying the EU at this point will just mean a harsher perspective on issues that are still in front of them (and will be for several years yet, no doubt). Pulling out now doesn't cancel all the legal problems that they've generated in the past and this case itself dates back to at least 2004 (and relates to affairs from a while before that).

If MS pulled out, the "vacuum" created by absence of a product to replace MS stuff would generate a lot of easy revenue - the various governments, companies, institutions would look at replacing everything NOW rather than wait until they hit problems. They'd do it right to prevent a reoccurence and they'd (ironically) be using MS's own money to fund the replacement. Unix/Linux/Apple companies would make a killing overnight.

Re:I know how Microsoft can score BIG here . . .

[hxnwix]

Remember the energy crisis? While the US went on to become even more dependant on middle eastern oil, Europe realized that the mid east had them by the short and curlies. France replaced their fossile fuel power plants with nuclear systems and Norway tapped into its undersea oil and natural gas fields.

I posit that word documents are less addictive than midddle eastern petroleum and that, should Microsoft force the EU's hand, Microsoft software shipments to Europe would be as common as crude shipments to scandinavia.

Time to apply for patents.

[Short Circuit]

Time for Microsoft to apply for patents on anything and everything described by these protocols...Otherwise, they're up a creek.

Wonder what they'll tell us this time

[badger.foo]

The last time the EU demanded that Microsoft produce usable documentation (as in, sufficient specs to program at least a working prototype implementation of the relevant network protocols), they kept insisting that the EU had demanded that they hand over all their source code. And of course large chunks of the press believed them.

I wonder what story they'll try to feed us this time around.

Re:Wonder what they'll tell us this time

[Keeper]

They never said that. They said they had documented everything, and if that still isn't sufficient you can license our code. The EU said that code wasn't sufficient documentation.

Newflash! MS to pay up!

[pair-a-noyd]

They will ignore the demands and accept the fine.
Then they will say they will pay with vouchers for MS software.
Same shit, different day..

Awesome!

[Phoenix666]

I'm rooting for the EU to crack the back of this beast. It's high time that multi-national corporations learn that they are not above the law. Arthur Andersen doesn't seem to have been enough of an example, because corporate officers and billionaires in this world still play like they think they're masters of the universe.

Not Ridiculous at all

[gzunk]

For the umpteenth time. Microsoft was tried and convicted in Europe for Anti-Trust violations, just like they were in the states. Part of the remedy was to document the protocols to allow comptetitors software to interoperate with Windows servers.

Microsoft refused to comply with the remedy as decided by the court. The court then decided to fine Microsoft. Microsoft refused to comply with the remedy and refused to pay the fines. That's where we are at the moment.

So the EU isn't against Microsoft because it's American, it's against corporations that break the law, get convicted then ignore the punishment that has been decided by the court.

Now do you see?

Reality?

[wev162]

What power does the EU ultimately have to enforce the fines at this point if MS simply doesnt pay the fines: Are they prepared to ban the importation of MS products and quit the MS Windows habit cold turkey? I can't see many businesses appreciating being deprived of a standard business environment/tool such as Windows or Office. I'm fairly ignorant of EU politics but is there enough strength in the political system to push an embargo though and make it stick?

Re:Reality?

[DragonWriter]

What power does the EU ultimately have to enforce the fines at this point if MS simply doesnt pay the fines:

Most governments give some agency the power to enforce judgements by ordering the seizure of property that is within their jurisdiction in order to satisfy the judgement: while that obviously applies to things like bank accounts held in banks subject to the government in question, and real estate, it also can extend to tangible personal property and to intangible personal property like, say, intellectual property.

If for purposes of EU law, the the EU itself was the copyright owner of all previously-published Microsoft software, or that Microsoft software was in the public domain, that would be a pretty serious penalty for Microsoft.

Re:Reality?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

What power does the EU ultimately have to enforce the fines at this point if MS simply doesnt pay the fines...

They can confiscate MS property and assets in the EU, and they can throw corporate executives that fail to comply in prison.

Are they prepared to ban the importation of MS products and quit the MS Windows habit cold turkey?

There is no need to do this. They could simply confiscate MS's copyrights if so inclined.

can't see many businesses appreciating being deprived of a standard business environment/tool such as Windows or Office.

That's not going to happen. MS broke the law to hold businesses hostage, the EU is not going to let them suffer for MS's crimes and there is no reason to do so.

I'm fairly ignorant of EU politics but is there enough strength in the political system to push an embargo though and make it stick?

Again, there will be no embargo. The commission does have the clout to throw people in jail, and eventually they'll get far enough down the line so that someone will comply. In a worst case scenario they will order MS Europe to be formed from the assets, personnel, and funds MS has in the EU and grant that company the copyrights within the EU. The EU cannot afford to let a big company flaunt breaking the law or they will lose credibility and power and they know it. They have the authority and the guns and they will use them if they have to, but they won't.

MS will comply with the EU, even if they are slow about it. They would be idiots to walk away from the huge revenue stream that is the EU, in order to save a tiny portion of that in fines. It would also necessitate a huge new competitor to fill the space, destroying their stranglehold elsewhere. Do you want to buy Windows Vista from MS USA or Windows EU (with the same features) from MS-EU? Which will lower their price the most?

Speculation is fun and all, but really, this isn't going to happen.

What exactly is microsoft being asked to give up?

[jonwil]

Can someone give me some examples of microsoft propriatory data formats, network protocols or APIs that:
A.Would be covered under what the EU is asking MS to release
and B.Would actually be benificial to competitors of Microsoft (including open source)

Re:Ridiculous.

[KiltedKnight]

Remember: they bought the software, Microsoft didn't bash down their doors screaming "YOU WILL BUY OUR SOFTWARE!!".

That's not entirely true. Microsoft did make the deals with the PC OEMs to include a Windows license with their computers. Once upon a time, you actually had to purchase the PC operating system separately. Once Microsoft made these deals, OEMs were forced to install Windows on the machines. Based on recent experiences, the OEMs are not allowed, contractually, to sell the computers without Windows installed.

So they didn't exactly bash down the consumers' doors and force them to buy their software. They forced the PC OEMs to force it on them.

And you are correct with some of the xenophobia. Basically, the EU nations do not want to be purely beholden for this type of thing to a US-based company.

Re:I don't care what happens to Microsoft

[peragrin]

I don't know about that. Walmart doesn't pretend that it's a nice place to work. Walmart doesn't pretend to be anything more than a minimum wage shop. Walmart is a discount house, and really doesn't try to be anything different.

MSFT pretends to be open and standards following, and caring company, who you then partner with(playsforsure) and then stabs you in the back(Zune).

A simple fact, Outside of MSFT's monopoly their products are at best average and rarely long term profitable. Walmart while Evil, doesn't have all their eggs in one basket, and isn't a convicted monopolist.

Fine European Wine

[Eco-Mono]

Does anyone else see this as an incredible boost to projects like Wine and ReactOS? Given that up until now they've had to use Chinese Walls and so forth to figure these things out, it seems to me that this court order is going to save them a *lot* of effort.

The reply from Microsoft...

[Dunbal]

next week, Microsoft must hand over all secret information on Windows protocols to its competition.

      But, but, your honour - we don't HAVE any competition...!

Translation and Original Story

[smooc]

quick translation:

New Ultimatum for Microsoft bu the EU

LONDON - The Eurpean Union has issues a new ultimatum against the American software giant Microsoft: before next Thursday the company has to turn over all (bdb: information about the) secret protocols in its Windows-OS to its competitors.

If Microsoft does not comply with the demands, the company risks more fines, threatened EC Neelie Kroes in Wednesday's edition of the British newspaper the Guardian. "I do not live forever" Kroes said about the tightened pressure.

Accoriding to her Microsoft has not given all relevant information yet. She compared it to a puzzle from which certain pieces are missing.

In March 2004 the European Commission already fined Microsoft by an amount of 497 million euros in alledged abuse of market power. In July an additional fine was set which can go up to 280,5 million euros.

original story in the guardian: http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1947759,00 .html

Some nice offices in the UK for a start

[gzunk]

I'm sure the various Microsoft subsiduaries in the EU member states have some nice assets like bank accounts and property that could be seized.

Re:countdown

[donotdespisethesnake]

Predictably, many (US) Slashdotters trot out typical US hypocrisy and double standards. Spamhaus, a UK company, gets no sympathy in the US because "they should abide by the laws of the US when doing business in the US / jurisdiction of the US courts". OK, fair enough. But now a US company doing business in the EU is asked to abide by the laws of the EU - "no fair!" they cry.

We see this time and again, whether it's steel imports, GM crops or democracy. "We can impose tariffs, but you can't". It's the US way, or else.

I would have hoped that us nerds would be a bit more clued up on the world, and aware of being played like political pawns. Is it really too hard to pull your head out the sand and see the double standards that the US applies? This site is "news for nerds", but that often seems secondary to "knee jerk reactions by American patriots".

Re:Ridiculous.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

While I am like most of Slashdot in that I think that Microsoft has a very tight grip on the computer market, I still will never understand why the EU is so against Microsoft. Is it because it is produced in a foreign market? I know many European countries have unhealthy feelings of xenophobia...

While I, like most people on Slashdot understand that Lee Boyd Malvo is a good shot, I still will never understand why Virginia is so against him. Is it because he is black and Virginians hate blacks? I know a lot of Virginians are Clansmen...

Microsoft broke the law. The EU has enforced this same law against numerous companies that are both European and based in other countries. What's so hard to understand?

Remember: they bought the software...

Do you even know what this case is about? The whole point is that because everyone pretty much has to use Windows on the desktop to get software they need to do business means it is illegal for MS to force them to buy their server OS as well by tying the two together with secret protocols that make it hard to use a different server with Windows desktops. Since doing so is clearly against the law both in the US and the EU and MS was convicted of it both in the US and EU, I don't really see where refusing to fix the problem by providing a level playing ground for Linux and Solaris and everyone else as far as their interactions with the Windows desktop is concerned is in any way confusing.

Listen, I know MS publishes a lot of FUD about this and tries to confuse the issue, but it just isn't that hard. MS built their business model around breaking the law. They knew from the outset what they are doing is illegal and why and they just figured they'd make more money by breaking the law then paying any fines than by obeying the law. So far they've been very right. Even assuming they pay the fines they've acquired they're still right. They're not going to stop unless someone makes them with a bigger stick than this. Stop buying their marketing FUD.

Let's apply some real MS tax

[moria]

Why give them another 8 days? Isn't it a long time since the last "warning"? The whole give-you-another-two-year thing is stupid. Look at what happened in US. If they do not cooperate, apply *heavy* tax on every windows sales. This is another way to give advantage to competitors. When MS is trying to kill competitors and refuse to cooperate, you can *help* competitors to effectively reverse the situation.

Re:What exactly is microsoft being asked to give u

[jimicus]

CIFS, for a start.

Don't get me wrong, the Samba project's done a fantastic job of reverse engineering SMB, but they're miles behind domain management - you can't run an Active Directory domain with a Samba backend, the best it supports is an NT 4 domain.

Work is afoot to support AD domain management, but realistically the release of something like that would probably give it a huge boost.

That may be why MS aren't too keen to release anything...

Why increasing the pressure?

[janwedekind]

N. Kroes answer (according to Volkskrant article): "I don't have the immortal life."

Re:what he said

[jedidiah]

Data formats are NOT trade secrets.

If anything, the Microsoft corporate officers should be jailed for misapprpriateing the private data of it's end users. That is effectively what it does when it choses to encode that data without being willing to document the manner of that decoding. They're holding everyone hostage. It's just that people have finally wised up after being duped for years on end.

So the task of telling Microsoft what to go do with itself is not as simple as it should be.

Re:Ridiculous.

[DragonWriter]

While I am like most of Slashdot in that I think that Microsoft has a very tight grip on the computer market, I still will never understand why the EU is so against Microsoft.

The EU is so against Microsoft because Microsoft is so against obeying the law in the EU.

8 days isn't a lot of time to document...

[Nevyn522]

As far as I can recall, MS did endeavor to document a bunch of their interfaces. The response was that it was insufficient. MS tried to find out how it was insufficient, and was told that it was MS's responsibility to figure that out.

MS does produce technical documentation for a whole slew of its products. Look at the API-level documentation that is on http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/. It's just not the most obvious documentation. Is it usable? For the most part. Does it cover every single idiosyncracy? No.

MS did make a good faith effort previously, and the only response they got was a thumbs down with no guidance on what to do differently. I don't really think such a risky prospect as actually having SECRET APIs would have been permitted by the company's legal department after the antitrust mess. Rather, I just don't think the documentation is that good. An uncommented header file would be documentation; it just wouldn't meet the needs of the EU regulators.

Providing MS with an EIGHT DAY deadline is just absurd. Even if everyone qualified as a technical writer was thrown at the problem, there still needs to an information flow, probably from some people who are on vacation for a month now that Vista has shipped. There's only so much that can be written at a time, and only so much that can be documented in any period of time. Add in the time for editing, and legal review, and to verify completion... eight days? It's just an excuse to charge Microsoft with more money. Even a month would be more of an indication that they expected Microsoft to be able to comply. Given that up until this point Microsoft was working at having it done next July, the scheduling cannot be compressed by 8 months.

Had the commissioner provided a more reasonable deadline, Microsoft could be cast into a harsh light by this ruling, as the request already existed, and the Commissioner just disagreed with the amount of time they were claiming to need. Microsoft has tried to provide documentation before, and was told it was insufficient -- doubtless this time they wanted to avoid this charge.

Anyone who has ever written technical API documentation will probably be inclined to agree that trying to compress even a three month timeline into 8 days will be well nigh impossible. The commissioner's demand is effectively a demand for money, not for documentation; I can't see any way ANY company, no matter their motives, would be able to meet the deadline.

Re:8 days isn't a lot of time to document...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

As far as I can recall, MS did endeavor to document a bunch of their interfaces. The response was that it was insufficient. MS tried to find out how it was insufficient, and was told that it was MS's responsibility to figure that out.

Bullshit. MS was given clear instructions. They need sufficient documentation so that competitors can re-implement these protocols in their own servers. It is simple and clearly defined and instead of complying MS published a bunch of lies and tried to both sway public opinion and provide the least possible info to satisfy the EU in the hopes that they could get away with something that was insufficient for their competitors in the server space.

MS does produce technical documentation for a whole slew of its products. Look at the API-level documentation that is on http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/. It's just not the most obvious documentation. Is it usable? For the most part. Does it cover every single idiosyncracy? No.

They do not publish reasonable documentation on the protocols as they themselves have admitted and the US courts have also judged them in noncompliance (although due to their lobbying we don't punish them). If they're going to use secret broken versions of existing standards, they can't use them in both their client and server. This is simple and obvious if you read the law. MS knew it. They still know it. They're just delaying the fines as long as possible.

Providing MS with an EIGHT DAY deadline is just absurd.

Again I call bullshit. This is how long they have to stop breaking the law in this one way. They knew the law in the first place. Zero days before a fine is levied is sufficient in my opinion. Listen Mr. Murderer, I know 8 days isn't a lot of time, but we need you to stop killing people within that time frame. I know it's hard to change, but that's just the way it is. Besides, they have 8 days till the fines kick in. They've had two years since they were officially convicted of the crime already. That is way, way, way too long. Every day weakens competition and hurts both consumers and the industry.

Anyone who has ever written technical API documentation will probably be inclined to agree that trying to compress even a three month timeline into 8 days will be well nigh impossible.

APIs? They have had 2 years to document communication protocols, not APIs. The protocols were mostly copied from existing open standards in the first place. Either you've bought into their propaganda beyond all reason or you're being paid to spread this FUD.

The commissioner's demand is effectively a demand for money, not for documentation; I can't see any way ANY company, no matter their motives, would be able to meet the deadline.

Good. Hopefully it will go beyond that. MS has built their business plan around breaking the law and paying off politicians and lawsuits. This is unacceptable. They should be progressively fined higher and higher amounts until breaking the law is no longer profitable for them and then they should be fined even more so that other companies understand such practices are not acceptable. If the US was not run by corrupt scumbags MS would have been broken up long ago and this would not be a problem. For political reasons the EU cannot order MS to break up, but they sure as hell should be fining them into oblivion until they obey they law.

Re:Ridiculous.

[kilgortrout]

Isn't the real question why is the US so easy on a convicted monopolist?? The answer to that question is things that negatively impact MS will have a negative effect on the US economy. MS employs a large number of US citizens, pays a lot of taxes and is a very large exporter of US goods which could greatly effect the balance of payments if exports of MS goods were reduced. You could probably throw in political bribes in the form of campaign contributions, etc. as well but I assume they do that world wide.

These consideratioons are not present in the EU so you get more even handed enforcement of the antitrust laws. It's also a chance to stick it to one of the EU's main economic competitors, the US which I guess is the gist of your comment. But make no mistake about it, MS is as dirty as hell in both the US and the EU. Can you imagine what would have happened to MS in the US courts if it was a French company?

Re:What exactly is microsoft being asked to give u

[raddan]

SMB/CIFS, MAPI, Microsoft DNS, RPC over HTTP, Office APIs, and so on... The list is here.

Re:Newflash! MS to pay up!

[SEMW]

Uh, no. This is a legal fine. MS can't pay a fine to a court with vouchers for their software any more than you can pay a parking fine with a book of coupons.

Re:Idealism

[dada21]

I'm not saying that's not the way things *should* be. I'm just saying that people always game the system to their best advantage. What you propose is a fantasy. Nobody would create software that way if they could use the system to their own advantage. I agree with your idealism. That'd be great. But it's also not the way it would be.

I write for two reasons: to gain insight from people's replies (which would be VERY costly to do if I hired them to reply, even the emotional ones), and to promote some free market thoughts as people work the problems back to their source: the lack of freedom under a State that wants to regulate and restrict everyone but those that can afford to bribe the State.

I'm never quite sure where I fall on copyright law. I write, and I know how hard it would be for writers to make a living without copyright protection. But, like you, I feel the prohibition against the free exchange of information is also wrong.

I write, but I repudiate copyright entirely. Everything I have ever written -- books, blogs, music -- and everything I have ever designed -- art, photos, machinery -- I let others copy freely and even use their own name on it with no attribution. I find that this increases the demand for that given market, which eventually helps me if I find a way to be the most competitive against others who are also in the market. I love competition, it has ALWAYS helped me. I've helped my own employees start competitive businesses against me, and I've still grown as more customers come into the market. I see no reason for "protecting" my thoughts or actions against mimicry.

And that the problem: any system that allows any behavior will result in exploitative behavior. The arguments in favor of a free, unregulated market (that is, "let the market decide") always remind me of vigilantism: if someone murders, let the family of the person murdered punish the murderer. An unregulated market would result in the larger corporations using their market force to regulate the market, and the citizens will never get much of a say.

That's a good opinion, but I'm not sure how true it is. Without a tyranny in the State, a company producing a product or service would have competition -- no matter how big that company is. Even billion dollar chip manufacturers have competition, because millions of individuals invest to try to compete on that level. The only thing the State changes is that they sometimes create an infinitely high barrier to entry through copyright and patent laws. Getting rid of that infinitely high barrier to entry may leave us with a high barrier to entry, but high is easier to jump over than infinitely high.

They *would* do this. They already do this to gain more control than copyright or patent law gives them currently. Yes, we should certainly strike down patent laws, and perhaps even copyright. But that won't change essentially destructive corporate self-interest. When the corporations control the market (such as IBM did years ago, and Microsoft does now), they warp the market to their own favor. They will do this no matter what laws exist or do not exist.

But while they're trying to maintain control through force, they'd have dozens if not hundreds or thousands of competitors nipping at their ankles. Eventually, all it takes is one bacteria to take down a giant. It has happened through all of history, and it would continue to happen unless the company in power was able to truly stay more efficient or cheaper or produce a better product. Competition never goes away in a less-regulated market.

Simple as this

[brywalker]

This is nothing more than bribery for trade secrets. Period. The only thing Microsoft can do is retaliate.

1) Immediately release a statement that they are horrified that they are being pressured to make copyrighted works public or else face fines.

2) Announce an IMMEDIATE withdrawl of Windows software from the EU. They will buy back licences at fair market value, as long as there is proof that the OS has been removed from the system. Announce no more support for those that continue to use it.

3) Profit.

How? The EU would shit their pants if Microsoft pulled Windows from the market. They could not function without it. Try doing a multi country conversion to Linux without disrupting business, it can't happen. They would come crawling back with their tail tucked.

Call their bluff, Microsoft. This is grade A bullshit.

Re:Simple as this

[Phil246]

The eu doesnt need microsoft to co-operate if it truely wanted their trade secrets. they could sieze them without all this fuss.
Microsoft can threaten all it wants but no corporation currently is more powerful then a state.
They'll simply be slaughtered both by the EU, and by their shareholders if they continue to refuse to comply with the court order.

step 2 above seems to assume that everyone would return their copy to microsoft, just because they asked.
Chances are they wouldnt, and all the EU needs to do is revoke all copyrights, patents , etc granted to microsoft and all businesses can continue to use it, legally while they migrate people over to other operating systems at their own pace.
you may say that microsoft wouldnt let them access the updates, and you're probably right - however there are sites which package windows updates into one big installer. Those could be used and indeed patched should there be anything to ensure that only those outside the eu can install them.

Furthermore, Microsoft needs the EU more then the EU needs Microsoft.
the EU is a huge market for microsoft, larger then the US is and their shareholders would certainly take action if the executives cut off such a large market through their arrogance and stubbornness.

who is corrupt ..

[rs232]

"I'm from Europe and the unspoken truth here is that the EU officials are severely corrupt"

Acutally you have it the wrong way round, it's MS and its lobbiests who are doing the corrupting. Batting on their side is also Charlie McGreevey a member of one of the most corrupt goverments in Europe. he's also behind the repeated attempts to get a US style patent system introduced into Europe.

was EU corruption (Score:5, lies)

POINTLESS

[swalters1]

Alright, I'm not going to argue about MS being a monopoly or not, to be honest, I don't care. I don't care because one company setting the standards and everyone complying with it creates an environment of stability in computers. Most crashes, problems, and issues I have to diagnose and repair are most often caused by thrid party vendors that wrote software without bothering to read the existing Whitepapers on the subject...which is why this is POINTLESS. Even if MS complies have the people out there won't bother to read the information unless they are trying to take clients away from MS products. I know that's the point right? They're using legal action to ensure that people can play on a level playing feild. It's sounds liek a good idea, but it's a recipe for chaos in the long term. All you end up with is the establishment of new proprietary information from competitors of MS that eventually wil have to be sued to hand the information over as well, and the person who sues them, will use this ruling as the basis for their law suits.

Making MS hand over documentation on protocols is pointless, there are white papers that describe eveything important to a real programer, with a single exception, file formats for Office products (Word, Excel, Access, Outlook, Visio, etc) The formats used in Office 2007 are completely different....making this a pointless ruling. They've already changed the very protocols they've been told to hand over, and since 2007 isn't out of BETA yet, it technically isn't covered by the ruling. Smooth move.. this is what happens when courts are allowed to make rulings on technical systems they arn't qualified to rule on. They missed it big time if they really want to level the feild.

Personally I don't think making them turn over anything beyond a table of file format struture is fair to MS or the consumer. LEts say they force MS to turn over documentation about security in Windows (crippled as it already is) you've just given evey hacker a road map! That's about as stupid as a CNN reporter asking, "Can you give me the exact location of the troops?" while the enemy is watching CNN. Please, they want an API to turn off secuirty center, they got it. They want to re-write parts of the OS, screw em. It's not their OS, it's not their right to create more issues for the end user. Symantec and McAfee in particular are the worst abusers of the OS to date (at least in the US), and are ten times worse than MS about their anti-competition practices. At least with an OS you know what you're getting, you can expect it to infest every part of your comptuer, but half the people out their don't get that the copy of Security Center or Internet security that came with their new PC, is so deeply embeded in the OS that half the time the uninstall fails leaving your systems crippled forcing you to reinstall the software or risk having to reinstall windows.

Anyway, rant over. This ruling is pointless, it accomplishes nothing except having MS turn over file format informaiton to help Belgium's conversion to open office and doesn't do crap for the consumer the court is suppose to be protecting.

Re:POINTLESS

[Darth]

Alright, I'm not going to argue about MS being a monopoly or not, to be honest, I don't care. I don't care because one company setting the standards and everyone complying with it creates an environment of stability in computers.

Sort of like how dictatorships create an environment of stability in countries, right?
Sure, they might abuse their power and kill some people, and the laws they dictate might be unjust, but at least you know what you have to comply with.

Most crashes, problems, and issues I have to diagnose and repair are most often caused by thrid party vendors that wrote software without bothering to read the existing Whitepapers on the subject...which is why this is POINTLESS.

Uh, so? You think nobody on the planet is doing, or wants to do anything outside of the issues you have to diagnose and repair? You seem to have a very myopic view of the world.

They're using legal action to ensure that people can play on a level playing feild. It's sounds liek a good idea, but it's a recipe for chaos in the long term.

Sort of like Democracy, right?

All you end up with is the establishment of new proprietary information from competitors of MS that eventually wil have to be sued to hand the information over as well, and the person who sues them, will use this ruling as the basis for their law suits.

Without monopoly power, a competitor cannot dictate proprietary standards onto the market. Their competitors will create an open, interoperable standard and support it instead and the proprietary vendor will end up marginalized. This has happened plenty of times in the last 30 years. In the absence of monopoly influence, the market tends to correct itself on those things.

If it did happen then, yes, someone would sue and this ruling could be used for the basis of their suit (actually it probably couldn't since i dont think the EU courts use prior cases as precedent in future cases the way the United States court system does). I'm not sure why you brought that up though, because that was just indicate a properly functioning legal system, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Making MS hand over documentation on protocols is pointless, there are white papers that describe eveything important to a real programer, with a single exception, file formats for Office products (Word, Excel, Access, Outlook, Visio, etc) The formats used in Office 2007 are completely different....making this a pointless ruling. They've already changed the very protocols they've been told to hand over, and since 2007 isn't out of BETA yet, it technically isn't covered by the ruling.

I think the Samba guys would disagree with ou on that first part. (unless, maybe you don't consider them real programmers?)

I fail to see how the Office 2007 format being different makes the ruling pointless. Do you not think people want interoperability with older file formats? Do you think everyone will immediately switch to Office 2007 and convert their old documents to office 2007 format? History disagrees with that.

Also, how can Office 2007 using a different file format make the ruling pointless if it isn't even out of beta yet? And how do you know the EU isnt requiring them to hand over documentation on the file formats for the beta software also?

Personally I don't think making them turn over anything beyond a table of file format struture is fair to MS or the consumer. LEts say they force MS to turn over documentation about security in Windows (crippled as it already is) you've just given evey hacker a road map!

So far, the only people who have demonstrated a need for a road map for windows security are the security vendors and MS themselves. The hackers seem to be doing just fine without one.
Besides, if looking at this documentation will make it so easy for the hackers to abuse windows, shouldn't it also make it easy for MS to find those holes and fix them? Are the hackers that much better than the "real" programmers at M

Not really xenophobia

[Moraelin]

And you are correct with some of the xenophobia. Basically, the EU nations do not want to be purely beholden for this type of thing to a US-based company.

Huh? There are plenty of EU-based companies which got harsher sentences than MS right from the start. MS initially got no fine, and was just ordered to document the protocol. MS got fined only after it ignored the ruling and the deadline. MS's fine only got so big by ignoring the daily fine for 2.5 years. (It's basically like ignoring a parking fine for 2.5 years straight, and continuing to park in front of a garage every day. Of course it gets to be big money after a long time.) _And_ it's been given a sweet deal in that if it finally releases those docs until the final deadline (in 8 days now), it gets to pay no fine at all.

EU-based corporations and cartels typically got slapped hundreds of millions of Euro fines right from the start.

I.e., whatever xenophobia might exist in the EU (and it exists), this judgment was the exact opposite. MS was given a much better deal than any European company that broke the anti-trust laws. I.e., if any discrimination is at work here, effectively the EU then discriminates against its own citizens and companies by giving MS a much better deal.

Re:Legal people make bad assumptions about softwar

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The lawyers and judges (who don't generally understand software development or architecture at all) keep making numerous faulty assumptions.

You're the one making faulty assumptions. Many of the people working on this case know all of the things you cite, but they don't matter. This is a punishment for MS breaking the law that MS bargained for after they were found guilty. They claimed they would do it.

Just because Microsoft doesn't publish documentation for every conceivable thing they do, it doesn't mean a competitor is incapable of interoperating with their stuff.

If they're writing something that connects their desktop OS in the market they've monopolized with the server OS in a different market, they bloody well knew it was illegal unless it was open and documented so they bloody well should have done so. Or, they could have used the original standards they corrupted in order to make these protocols and avoided breaking the law in the first place. It doesn't matter if the Samba team can reverse engineer well enough to get Linux to mostly work. By law they have to have exactly the same capability to do so that Microsoft has and that means clearly written docs or the original developers hired to help them and anyone else who wants it.

If Microsoft wants to take over the server OS space, great. Let them do it by making the best server OS, not with this illegal bullshit. In my opinion, MS should be fined a hell of a lot more than they have been and the money handed over to all the competitors they have harmed. The damage they have done to the entire industry will take many years to fix and it won't start until this is solved.

If this were a first offense or something I'd be a little more lenient but it isn't even close. They've done this same thing again and again and they continue to do so. It needs to be made clear that breaking the law as part of your business plan is not acceptable and you will be smacked down hard if you do it. The US should break them up, but since the US courts are too corrupt, the EU should make sure they walk away from the next meeting of directors with a clear message that breaking the law will not be profitable.