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.
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.
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?
Record EU fine for lift 'cartel'
Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.
why? there is nothing found that indicates it's not patentable, and the article has nothing to do with that.
/.'rs than they're used to ignoring.
I hope this sends a stronger "RTFM" message to the
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I would disagree.
Now, the EU is saying that, according to the terms MS agreed to about how to value the stuff based on the amount of innovativeness in it, MS hasn't really done anything innovative. And, furthermore, how dare they try to charge so much damned money for something which, really, isn't all that different from the stuff that already existed. They're being caught in their embrace, extend, then break model of 'competition'.
This is not the EU 'scraping the bottom of the barrel', this is about trying to enforce a previous judgement against MS -- one which they continually try to evade both the letter and spirit of: that of allowing for more interoperability between MS products and anyone else.
They might take the step of invalidating the patents held by Microsoft. Which would say "hey, wait a minute, those magic proprietary protocols you have and claim people need to spend big bucks on are just open protocols you have intentionally made incompatible, and are trying to prevent people from implementing to preserve your monopoly-like status".
This is all about MS continuing to defy court rulings which say they're not allowed to enforce a software monoculture -- especially when all they did is minorly change existing protocols (or, take an existing idea and do it slightly different) and then patent them in order to make sure nobody else can communicate with their stuff. You know, continuing to do the exact same offence they were found guilty of doing in the first place -- and the enforcement which they've been trying to re-interpret to their own benefit for quite some time.
Microsoft is doing their usual obfuscate and delay tactics. The EU is starting to say "enough, do what we told you that you had to do".
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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.
Oddly no, you are not the only one who thinks this. However, you think this because you don't know what other companies the EU has been fining. Please note specifically:
...
"Germany's ThyssenKrupp, US-owned Otis, Kone of Finland and Swiss firm Schindler were fined for taking part in a market-rigging cartel.
ThyssenKrupp was handed the biggest fine in EU history for a single firm - 480m euros - as it was a repeat offender, the EU added."
The idea that the EU is only going after Microsoft is only espoused by American posters. I do not know what sense of insecurity causes them to think this. Perhaps it is the idea that only America matters and that the EU doesn't have anything interesting within it's own borders to pay attention to. Who knows?
Supply complete and accurate information: This is very vague and how would they even test whether the documentation is complete and accurate
If I was appointed to the evaluation, I would try to figure out if I am able to create a software able to communicate with windows's SMB (and friends) protocols from their spec. I don't see this as an impossible task really as long as I am given enough time, and it looks like they took some time for that since the issue with EU began. The formulation of the news report may sound vague to you, but the objective it represents does not need much more details I think.
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've the feeling that it's more or less what they have done:
here reads:
For both licences, Microsoft divided the protocols into Gold, Silver and Bronze price categories based on the claimed degree of innovation. Microsoft has already agreed that there is a fourth category of protocols, not necessarily innovative, for which there will be no royalty.
According to the trustee, there is no innovation in most of their protocols, which means there should be no royalty for them if I read that correctly. You may argue that the appointed trustee might not be in conditions to drive educated enough conclusions, but this is someone both EU and microsoft have agreed upon:
In accordance with the terms of the Decision, Microsoft submitted several candidates for the position of Monitoring Trustee
Hence, I see some substance in the today's development of the microsoft issue, and hope it's gonna go a lot further for once. This is a stupid games, and microsoft is wasting both EU's time and tax money on that one; I'll be glad if some of that cash come back as a fine they truly deserve.
Look at the comparable technology and if its not priced below it then perhaps they are being unreasonable.
Except that this doesn't involve technology. The EU is making a statement about the specifications, not the implementation. The specification for the TCP protocol isn't a TCP protocol stack, it's only MS that wants to call it one.
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.
False. MS is having gov. do their bidding for them. In particular, upper reaches of gov. tell sub groups that they will run windows. The upper group have a cash or reward incentive to do it. In America, it is called lobbying or simply doing business as usual. In other countries, it is called bribery and is illegal.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.