Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Threatened With Fines By EU Again
ukhackster writes "The EC is threatening Microsoft with yet more fines. This time, it's over the interoperability protocols that Microsoft has been ordered to open up to its rivals. The EC has examined 1,500 pages of information about the protocols, and concluded that they 'lack significant innovation'. This is pretty damning for both Microsoft and the patent system, as it has been awarded 36 patents covering this technology and has another 37 pending. Could this encourage someone like the EFF to start pushing to get these patents overturned? The EU has a FAQ about this issue, containing additional details on the subject.
They are about redistribution of wealth, from those that have less to those that have more.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
.... That you can read here: http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/187051
Note this quote from the above story:
"This is a company which apparently does not like to have to conform with antitrust decisions," said EU Commission spokesman Jonathan Todd.
Next they'll be saying that the sky is blue and fish swim. Thanks for stating the obvious.
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
this sends a stronger "Get a Clue" message to the US Patents office than they're used to ignoring.
Since it's MS and "lack of innovation" is their trademark, then these won't be one-time fines, they'll end up as yearly taxes.
"It is hard to see how the Commission can argue that even patented innovation must be made available for free."
Which neatly ignores the fact that software patents are unenforcable within the EU. Microsoft appear to hope that the EU don't know that.
I think EU doesn't like MS too much nowadays :)
But honestly, aren't they right? If any monopoly is locking others from access they always do it. Why should MS be different? They're effectively a monopoly in OS.
"an experienced, industrious, ambitious, and often, quite often, picturesque liar" - Mark Twain
That's Microsoft's problem, confusing the interface specification with the source code implementing the interface. The EU is commenting on the interface, not the implementation. When they say the interface specification contains no protectable innovation, that doesn't mean that Microsoft's particular implementation of that specification doesn't contain any innovation but simply that that innovation isn't going to be present in the mere API spec.
When it comes to judging sanity, sometimes the best proof is a certificate that says as much.
Governments should not be like Christians.
How is this redundant? Fuckwits. Here, mod this one down too. All you are doing is wasting your own mod points, you can't touch my karma.
You just don't like the fact that I used the phrase "redistribution of wealth" and implied that the wealthy were doing the redistributing. But you don't have anything intelligent to say about it, so you use the mod-stick.
Face it, if you aren't rich, patents aren't doing shit for you, except making products more expensive. By rich, I mean making over $1,000,000 per year. You $200,000 a year folks, you aren't rich, and you never will be. So stop sucking up to them, they are screwing you as much if not more than they are screwing the poor $25,000 a year guy.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Either that, or it's pretty damning for the EC's kangaroo court..
Patents in the EU and the US are different, so the EU's ruling probably won't have much effect in the US courts. Also, being forced to reveal any non-patented trade secrets, as defined by US code, could have a bad precedential effect on US law. I wouldn't be surprised to see DOJ get involved in this one in some manner. Trade secrets don't have to be unique enough to be patented, but they are still protected by criminal penalties. If the EU can force American companies to give them up, that pretty much invalidates the entire statute. And I'm not arguing on the moral grounds of the Trade Secret statute, just that it exists, and the US government has an interest in maintaining it as such.
http://bgcommonsense.blogspot.com
The Commission unilaterally suspended enforcement of the obligations imposed by the March 2004 Decision pending the Court of First Instance's consideration of Microsoft's request for interim measures, which request was denied by the Court of First Instance on 22 December 2004 (MEMO/04/305). Both before and after that date, the Commission engaged in discussions with Microsoft about its compliance, and conducted a market test of Microsoft's proposals on interoperability (see IP/05/673). In the light of the results of that market test, the Commission issued a decision on 10 November 2005 pursuant to Article 24(1) of Regulation 1/2003 (the Article 24(1) Decision). This decision warned that should Microsoft not comply by 15 December 2005 with its obligation to: (i) supply complete and accurate interoperability information; and (ii) make that information available on reasonable terms, it would face a daily fine of up to 2 million (see IP/05/1695).
Supply complete and accurate information: This is very vague and how would they even test whether the documentation is complete and accurate
Make that information available on resonable terms: Then specify the terms rather than going back and forth on telling MS, your royalty rates are high. If comission finds that the royalty rates are high, then specify the maximum that MS can charge on these kind of things. If comission determines it should be free and specify that. I am not understanding why would comission waste so much time in coming to some form of conclusion on this one.
"This is a company which apparently does not like to have to conform with antitrust decisions,"
This, and other astoundingly insightful quotations in this months up-coming issue of DUH!
A goal is a dream with a deadline
Before anybody goes nuts read the article. This is about the p[ricing for a liscence microsofts allows third parties to buy that gives them the documents. Microsoft states that it should be based on innovation but the ec states they dont have too much inovation so the ec is stating that the prices are too high. How does the ec know what is innovative or not?
<sarcasm>What, you mean Microsoft didn't invent all of their networking technology from scratch?</sarcasm>
... MS has been acting like they invented all networking technologies ever, and they are entitled to protection for their 'innovations'.
I mean, really
The reality of it is, I bet all of their protocols are ones which were "embraced and extended" over time. Hopefully, they'll be forced to play a little nicer with others.
Taking stuff someone else did, obfuscating it, calling it proprietary, and then patenting it is just in bad form. I'm glad to see someone finally taking them to task over this. I'm even more glad that, after they were ordered to cough up the information, the information they gave demonstrated that they hadn't 'innovated' anything.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
The EC has examined 1,500 pages of information about the protocols, and concluded that they 'lack significant innovation'.
Microsoft's patent number 6,727,830, "Time based hardware button for application launch," issued on April 27, 2004:
A method and system are provided for extending the functionality of application buttons on a limited resource computing device. Alternative application functions are launched based on the length of time an application button is pressed. A default function for an application is launched if the button is pressed for a short, i.e., normal, period of time. An alternative function of the application is launched if the button is pressed for a long, (e.g., at least one second), period of time. Still another function can be launched if the application button is pressed multiple times within a short period of time, e.g., double click.
Wooooo, innovative! In other words, Microsoft just patented the method by which a windows manager will select an icon if you single click it, but launch the application associated with the icon if you double-click it. All your WMs belong to Redmond.
Record EU fine for lift 'cartel'
Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.
Even Jack Thompson has a certificate claiming he is sane.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Sorry, couldn't resist ;)
Perhaps they might just take all their assets held in countries signed up to the EU? Microsoft don't operate soley from their secret headquarters in the Rockies - hording their gold in giant underground bunkers to which only Bill and Steve have the keys. They have offices, staff, equipment, bank accounts around the world. If they don't pay the fines they cannot operate in one of the two largest combined economies in the world, not to mention losing all the assets they have there, all the legal protections for their IP in that region, never being able to send any employees to the region or to regions with extredition treaties, etc, etc.
Or did you think Bill poped over with a big sack of money every time MS did a transaction in the EU?
The other issue I had with their claim that prices are unreasonable. If I develop a patented technology, I should be allowed to price it anyway I like. You could argue that this is modified since MS is a monopoly but what if I become a monopoly thats been convicted of unfair trade practices. But what if I got a monopoly through fair dealing - the competition just wasn't good enough? Can the EC dictate what I should price my products at so as to help my failing competition out? Microsoft rejected the EC statements, claiming that it had been fair in setting the protocol prices, and an analysis had found the proposed prices "were at least 30 percent below the market rate for comparable technology". This at least is a quantifiable statement. Look at the comparable technology and if its not priced below it then perhaps they are being unreasonable.
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
In the 50 years of European antitrust policy, it's the first time we've been confronted with a company that has failed to comply with an antitrust decision.
I find that statement rather significant. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6408391.stm
weirdest thing I ever saw: scientology advertising on slashdot.
If EU countries were to unilaterally enact laws (for the assurance of government and financial security) that go something like:
If any computer OS/system contains a function A,B, or C, it must conform to API/protocols X,Y, and Z in order to meet applicable trade laws. IANAL so I don't if that would be feasable, but by creating laws that define usage of computing/networking functions, MS and all others would have to comply. This would remove the MS monopoly. I think that the Mass. ODF incident, Sarbanes-Oxley, and other situations are examples of how this could be done, rather than leave MS or anyone else to their own devices on interoperability. I know that MS has failed to be backwardly compatible with their own products, never mind anyone else's products. (Koreans?)
This, of course, raises other issues and problems, but its an interesting idea.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
I guess this "threaten" refers to XP and before? So old news again for Microsoft.
I'd assume the verdict will apply to all future versions of their software as well.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
They don't conflate interface with implementation; you do!
RTFA:
"The Commission's current view is that there is no significant innovation in these protocols."
The EC is saying that THE PROTOCOLS THEMSELVES should not be patentable. I suspect that they are rebutting Microsoft's argument that the PROTOCOLS THEMSELVES constitute innovation and therefore must not be divulged.
Looks like M$ is going to have a problem threatening free software with bogus patents in the EU.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I've been following from time to time this issue and it seems to me that EU should have already been charged in the 2 million *2 yrs * 365 days = 1,5 billions! Is it the case? Or like most ppl seems to say still trying to evade that cost. Therefore MS will wake up one day with a hefty fine on the mail? I'm guessing EU already asking for is 1,5 billions. From articile: In a Decision of 10 November 2005 pursuant to Article 24(1) of Regulation 1/2003 (see IP/05/1695), the Commission specified that Microsoft would be subject to daily penalty payments of up to 2 million from 16 December 2005, if by 15 December 2005, it had not complied with its obligation to: (i) provide complete and accurate interoperability information; and (ii) charge reasonable royalty rates for that information. In addition, the Commission Decision of 12 July 2006 pursuant to Article 24(2) (see IP/06/979) also contained a provision pursuant to Article 24(1) of Regulation 1/2003 which specified that in the event of continued non-compliance, the daily penalty payment to which Microsoft could be subject would rise to 3 million from 1 August 2006.
I'm just asking for trouble... But I'm convinced the EU keeps coming down on Microsoft for no other reason than because it's an American company who's dominant in a particular segment. If Microsoft were a European company not only would we not be seeing this legal action, we'd see Europe going out of it's way to protect Microsoft. They do it in other industries, why wouldn't they do the same here? Microsoft certainly is only one of quite a few American companies dealing with these sorts of problems in Europe.
In inevitably any nation is going to protect the interests of it's own companies, it's just that some nations take it to more of an extreme than other nations. Resentment towards American corporations is a lot stronger than many realize. I'm not going to get into details, but more than once I've experienced it first hand.
What in the hell is wrong with Microsoft charging whatever it wants for it's licenses? If companies aren't happy with the pricing they're free to go with a competitor or develop their own protocols. Perhaps the patents shouldn't have been awarded. If they lack sufficient innovation as is claimed why were the patents even awarded?
To be honest, I think this sort of action runs the risk of hindering innovation for one reason. The problem I see emerging however, is that once any company finds it's going to be too much of a challenge to be competitive all they have to do is claim the competitor is being anti-competitive.
I'm not saying all action against Microsoft is unjustified. It's absolutely necessary for the government to sometimes get involved. But I think there's a huge risk of companies using this sort of thing as a crutch. And when it comes to doing business internationally it's an even larger threat.
Dont even dare think of flaming me - remember the recent crap from u.s. senate we had to put up with about net neutrality, drm, patents, any shit that is beneficial to big buck, but detrimental to ALL people.
What eu did is something good. U.S. senate should learn to follow in its tracks.
you americans started to demean europe TOO much lately.
dont forget that, the ideas that sparked the united states revolution, the concepts of humanity, equality, republicanism and the like spread from europe especially with the 18th century writers like Rousseau, Voltaire, Diderot. If there werent these guys in the earlier parts of 18th century, many american founding fathers wouldnt field the same ideas with same strength in years coming up to 1774.
give some god damn deserved crecedence to europe dammit - some part of that soul which made 1789 still lives on in there - support them !
Read radical news here
How much were they charging so? I don't see that mentioned anywhere
They provided information; if the court doesn't contest that they were acting in good faith, the fines should be waived from the time that information was provided. If the information is deemed inadequate, a fine for the trouble can be levied; further, a second deadline can be set for Microsoft to comply. On the other hand, if they were not acting in good faith, a separate, more punitive fine will probably be levied, as well as a second deadline to be set.
Either way, it's unlikely that the daily penalty would be instated from 2005, and unlikely a fine as large as 1.5 billion be levied.
Because I'm bored, I'll try to spell it out for you.
I think what you're missing is that this case is about *two* platforms; Microsoft Servers and Microsoft Clients. They communicate using proprietary *protocols* which are not APIs and are very often publicly disclosed (think NFS, TCP/IP, ODF etc.). I don't use Microsoft software a lot but I think this specific case is file serving protocols and printer services. If these protocols are public (I would say publicly downloadable; Microsoft seems to think $50000 or so is R.a.n.D enough) then any competing company can make
(A) A client program for any given platform (say, Linux) that makes it seem like a Microsoft Client to e.g. a Microsoft printer server, and
(B) A server program for any given platform (say, Mac OS X) that makes it seem like a Microsoft Server (say CIFS server) to a group of Microsoft Client machines.
And then, you have what is called "interoperability", which is seen by some people (no, not just anti-US Microsoft haters) as a Good Thing(TM), because it reduces monopoly and encourages competition and innovation.
Snap je 't nu?
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
It does seem like no-one is wholly objective when it comes to Microsoft....
Of course it's possible there's an element of eurocentrism. But there's no way to tell because Microsoft arguments all fail on their technical and/or legal merits. It's not relevant whether there is a bias when the criticisms are all true.
What you're missing is that Microsoft does not provide an OS; thats not what their business model is. Microsoft provides a platform.
The word "Platform" is currently very fashionable but it has very little meaning.
Religion is the main cause of atheism.
since when does Microsoft follow the KISS principal?!
Almost everything happened in the Golden Age, right?
When writing CTM I was struck with how many of the good ideas in programming languages were discovered early on. The decade 1964-1974 seems to have been a "Golden Age": most of the good ideas of programming languages appeared then. For example:
- Functional programming: Landin's SECD machine (1964)
- Object-oriented programming: Dahl and Nygaard's Simula (1966)
- Axiomatic semantics: Hoare (1969)
- Logic programming: Elcock's Absys (1965), Colmerauer's Prolog (1972)
- Backtracking: Floyd (1967)
- Capability security: Dennis and Van Horn (1965)
- Declarative concurrency: Kahn (1974)
- Message-passing concurrency: Hewitt's Actor model (1973)
- Shared-state concurrency: Hoare's monitors (1974)
- Software engineering: Brooks's mythical man-month (1974)
It is a sobering thought that not much new stuff has come since then. Hindley-Milner type inferencing in 1978, constraint programming in 1980, CCS (precursor of pi-calculus) in 1980. What revolutionary new ideas came since 1980? Most of the work since then seems to have been in consolidation and integration (combining the power of the different ideas). Right?By Peter Van Roy at 2007-02-12
As with programming languages, so applications, IMHO.
USPTO: defenestrate these lousy software patents. They warm a body like the emperor's new clothes.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
I think this guy misspelled "FuckedCompany.com". Take off knuckledragger!
If you look at what is covered by Microsoft's Published Protocols made available by entering into Royalty Free licensing agreement, you will find yourself able to "to implement the Protocol(s) for which the applicable box(es) are checked on Exhibit A, and to use the corresponding Technical Documentation (as defined below) for that purpose." What are some of these Royalty Free protocols?
The list just keeps going on. I know this is royalty free but for the life of me I cannot figure out why I would need to sign a licensing agreement with Microsoft to implement any of these. A patent agreement maybe with Apple for AppleTalk or relevant parties to implement Bluetooth for example (not saying that I agree with software or protocol patents but this is the IP environment that we currently work in). Signing an agreement with Microsoft to be allowed to read documentation and implement someone elses protocol, WTF? No significant innovation. I would be interested to know if anyone has entered into this Royalty Free agreement.
Protocols not included in this list are subject to other licensing and royalty agreements. An implementation of a General Server without restricted protocols has a royalty rate of 5% for a software product and 2.5% for an embedded product with a minimum royalty of $40 per server or $0.40 per user. Per server licensing would put the minimum product price at $800.
Included in this is permission to implement propriety Microsoft protocols (.NET Remoting TcpChannel Protocol, FrontPage Server Extensions Remote Protocol, Microsoft Media Server Protocols, Windows Group Policy Protocols, etc) which may include significant innovation as well as others that are existing protocols that have been extended. These include:
None of these appear to be licensed separately, they are only available as part of task based licensing bundle. The protocols in the list above also don't have any significant innovation, they are just minor extensions or combinations of, existing protocols. I agree with the EU, these should not be patentable (nor should any protocol) and that the royalty is excessive.
What? Something of value happened outside the US borders? That is absurd.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
I'm curious now- how would one objectively determine that a given price is too high for what you get? (are there precedents here?) Isn't sorting out prices the market's job? ...like, if anybody is licensing the protocols, isn't that a signal that they're worth it to someone (or vice versa- if nobody's biting at that price, is that reasonable evidence that the price is too high)?
/. and it's heresy to question the basis of any situation that bends MS over a barrel, but I tend to trust governments (and their motivations) even less than I do big companies (whose motivations I at least understand). Mod as you will.
I guess I'm asking how the EU has managed to arrive at the conclusion that the price is wrong. I'm suspicious whenever I smell governments asserting control over prices or design, even when they're dealing with monopolists, when there's fines to be levied.
Also, wouldn't it make sense, if it's the EU's position that there's no innovation (and thus nothing patent-worthy?), to go through the process of overturning the patents and THEN (once the overturning process resolved whether there was something patent-worthy or not) issue a judgment on that basis?
I know, this is
If there's one thing I won't stand for, it's intolerance.
Glad to see it's a first for both parties - first time the EU meets someone who ignores the anti-trust ruling and first time MS meets someone who actually enforces a decision against them.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Software is no more than mathematics.
An mathematics is a mental process.
As soon as you allow patents of software you allow patents on thought itself.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
When Microsoft got done for anti-competitive practices a few years ago, they decided their own punishment - and donated computers & software to schools - effectively giving the competitors an even harder time in this market. There is no point punishing M$ - they are above the law.
Which is quite illegal for two reasons. Read on.
So MS failure to comply with standards (anything and everything from TCP/IP on up to Kerberos, LDAP, and even HTTP and HTML) should automatically eliminate it from consideration in government purchases, according to (2)(b). And any tenders explicitly specifying MS products or specifications should be withdran, according to (3)
However, even if governments were to comply with the international treaties which they have signed onto, you still have the problem of OEM lock-in to contend with.
Sure there is. Send all your patents to me for approval. If I like it, I'll approve it and if I don't....we'll you're screwed. Heck, I bet that I could get through them faster than the USPTO. I've got several myself so I know a bit about the process. My patents don't do a lot for me, since I don't "live or die" by them but I have, as you put it, bitch-slapped some people in court. Including some people who applied for a patent on *my device* and were granted a patent by the USPTO. How these nimrods can patent the same thing twice is beyond me. Now since I'm capable of building a database, I'm sure that I can come up with a way to search the patents I've already issued before granting a new one. Now since I've got my nifty database, I see no reason not to make people apply for them on line. Then we can publish the contents of the patent applications for anyone and everyone to read. I'd like to see a 5 star rating system and some amazon.com style user reviews.
2 cents,
QueenB.
HDGary secures my bank