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.
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.
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.
Patents aren't enforceable in EU as whole. They are quite enforceable in individual EU countries though. EU just doesn't have unified patent practice. And when EU doesn't have unified patent practice, I don't think it has the power to "open" MS (or any other's) patents in every EU country.
You don't know what you don't know.
This is the EU desperately looking for some reason, any reason, to levy a hefty fine, not so much for the revenue, but to show how "tough" they are. This is a joke. Fining someone because you don't think their patents are innovative? The EU is really scraping the bottom of the barrel on this one. The EU is the single most democratic movement in the history of the earth (yes, even more so than the US). The requirements for the rights a country's citizens have to be allowed are remarkable stringent.
Microsoft's monopoly has nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with tyranny.
To me, they're following the spirit _and_ the letter of the law. How common is that?
Record EU fine for lift 'cartel'
Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.
I doubt that a particularly high percentage of /. mods are making six figures, though thanks for the laugh on that one. But don't worry; after a while this batch of newbies will find another board to go be clueless on. I'm sure you'll remember that this sort of stupid-plague has hit before.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
You can patent software even in the EU but it's much more restrictive than in the US. And of course bullshit like one-click isn't patentable.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Microsoft's monopoly has nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with tyranny.
You've got it backwards. A government forcing a private entity to do business in a certain way is tyranny. A company producing a product that you don't like is free enterprise.
I don't respond to AC's.
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?
They are being fined because they demand too much money for those interface specifications they were supposed to release when there's nothing innovative about them. Means the court thinks MS is just increasing prices to prevent competitors from being able to afford the specs.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
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.
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
::Theres no simple test for innovation because there is no simple metric for obviousness. I just say walkman. This is SO obvious - still for a long time noone thought of it. You are totally right.
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.
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.
I don't know why I bother pointing this out but it's not just that Microsoft is producing a product. That as you say is free enterprise. The problem is the interface layer that they force any non microsoft entity to use doesn't allow free competition with other microsoft entities. That is the tyranny.
Can the EC dictate what I should price my products at so as to help my failing competition out?
If the competition are failing because of your illegal actions, then yes, they should.
-- Nick "Hallo this is Beel Gates, und I pronounce weendows as
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.
Um, no. Nobody is forced to use any Microsoft product. Buy it or not buy it. Hell, you don't even have to use a computer, if you so choose. Nobody will show up at your house with a gun in their hand forcing you to use their products. You are FREE to use or not use as you choose. A government entity, though, CAN show up to your front door with guns and force you do do whatever they'd like.
I don't respond to AC's.
If I develop a patented technology, I should be allowed to price it anyway I like.
Why do you think that?
You should be rewarded, certainly. But why should you be allowed such absolute control over the technology to the detriment of your customers?
Except, some of us might remember Microsoft co-opting things in plain sight.
Microsoft has been demonstrated in the past things like taking Kerberos, releasing a morphed version, and then try to claim it's a trade secret. Thereby, the extensions they made to an open standard are suddenly proprietary. Think also, of submarine patents, where you sit around with a bunch of people, decide how it should be done, and then secretly make a permutation of it, file for a patent, and then block everyone else from using it.
This is about MS providing the protocols to allow interoperability -- I suspect we're in the middle of getting better evidence that those 'proprietary' protocols which can't interoprate with other things are nothing more than other protocols they borrowed and intentionally broke compatibility with. They're going to be substantively similar to precursor technologies.
If you're going to claim that you have trade secrets that you would be damaged if other people see, and those trade secrets turn out to be versions of things which were developed by other people, the damage you're getting is to your credibility. Because, once people figure out that the only reason it's different (and secret) is to lock everyone into your product.
Co-opting other people's technology and then claiming it's a proprietary trade secret is basically crap. Refusing to provide the details under the continued guise that your 'innovative technology' is even more crap.
No, it's bullshit actually. If, in the example of Kerberos, the protocol was part of a publically available RFC (ie. free), then charging outrageous money for something you didn't really innovate but are pretending you did is hardly selling your stuff at "30% below market value". It's a cash grab at best -- fraud and extortion might also be said of this practice.
The people making this judgement are people selected from a list MS said it could live with of people who understand technology.
Don't let MS fool you -- this is about basic networking protocols which MS has intentionally made incompatible with everyone else for the purpose of making it break. This has nothing to do with innovating anything.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
True no one is forcing you to use a Microsoft product. What I was saying is that people who want to write products that work with microsoft products cant do so as well as microsoft can therefore they can't make a profit. That is what this is about interoperability.
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?
If you obtained a monoploy and dealt fairly you presumably wouldn't lose a trial about your unfair trade practices. But Microsoft did, in fact, lose such a trial. This is the penalty phase of that trial, not a ruling that being applied to someone dealt fairly and happened to be best.
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.
But don't worry; after a while this batch of newbies will find another board to go be clueless on. I'm sure you'll remember that this sort of stupid-plague has hit before.
Is it September again already?! Where did the Spring and Summer go ....
moreover, it really doesn't matter how did you become a monopoly. If you are then you have to play very nicely, like a non-monopoly. Otherwise the government must restore the competitive environment or control the monopoly, e.g. define its prices. Here EU wants to create the possibility of some competition, not to help other competitors (although that is a necessary side-effect).
Probably not ... software patents are not valid in Europe anyway. Taking a non-step is easy for European politicians. In fact, they are experts at it.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
What I was saying is that people who want to write products that work with microsoft products cant do so as well as microsoft can therefore they can't make a profit
So what?
I don't respond to AC's.
Thats not the point, since Microsoft IS an european Company too. Microsoft has it's daughtercompanies and divisions in almost every country of the EU. Microsoft Deutschland GmbH or Microsoft Schweiz GmbH (not EU, but european) for example. They all are their own Corporations.
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.
Mistake 1. The EU functions as a soverign body. They could happily levy a fee on any software "not invented here" This would show their "toughness"
Mistake 2. This is not a joke. This is justice being applied firmly to the behind of a company that is guilt of abusing it's monopoly advantage.
Mistake 3. This is not about how innovative their patents are. This is how innovative their protocols are. A patent can be taken out on a implementation of a protocol, but not the protocol itself. What the EU is saying is that the protocols are nothing special because they tend to follow the KISS principal.
Mistake 4. The EU represents a large percentage of MS customers. If the EU are trying to protect it's people from being abused under a monopoly, then the EU is doing it's job. If this is at the cost of MS shareholders, what matter is that to the EU? It isn't even a European company.
Must try harder.
A sig is placed here
To display how futile
English Haiku is
There is no bias in reality against foreign companies when it comes to EC anti-trust cases. In fact, the biggest anti-trust fine was given to a German company in connection with an lift and escalator cartel. And second this investigation wasn't initiated by the EC... it was a complaint from SUN Microsystems that triggered the whole thing. Which is, as I'm sure you know, very much an US company.
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
Disclaimer: I make ~ $50,000 a year.
The president of my company makes ~ $150,000 a year.
We live or die by our patents. We're primarily a soil remediation/washing company; we developed a technology completely different from anything else on the market. We do what other companies cannot do, and we do it cheaper than disposal/incineration.
If we didn't have a patent on our core equipment, we would not be in business. Why? Because several of our contractors have already tried to steal our design, and got bitch-slapped in court doing so.
Not that I totally disagree with you. I believe patents should cover a very narrow range of mechanical/technical innovation. Definitely not software concepts, and most likely not biotechnology, either. But can a small company like ours utilize the patent system to our advantage? Most definitely; if we didn't have a patented technology, we'd be out of business, because someone would literally steal our equipment (this HAS happened to us), reverse engineer it (this HAS happened to us), and we'd have no legal recourse, except possibly against the original theft, which would be difficult to prove.
Does the patent system need major reform? Yes. Do I think that the USPTO's standard of obviousness is ridiculous? Yes.
Do I think a patent system, in principle, is a good idea? Yes.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Nice counter example. I was, uh, stating my position more forcefully than necessary in order to elicit more interesting responses. Yeah, that's it. Not trolling. Nope, no, huh-uh.
I agree, patents are in general a good idea. But we need serious reform. Patent portfolios are used as a weapon to stifle innovation and dominate markets. Patents are granted for ridiculously obvious "inventions." The whole idea of patenting business processes and software is counter to the original concept of patents.
You are lucky your competitors aren't like certain large software companies that hold huge portfolios of patents and packs of rabid lawyers to throw at you in just such cases where your innovation might hurt them.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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?
In Hungary (an EU member) I read almost every week about serious penalties inflicted on local companies by the government institute responsible for the competitive business environment. And these companies frequently do less harm then Microsoft and none of them are nearly as arrogant. Despite these facts the EU threats Microsoft quite carefully.
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.
That might sound harsh, but it's a reality. ...and here's why:
The *only* reason (based on what you've written) that you would go bankrupt in the face of competition is if you're not efficient and your competition is.
In other words, you believe you can only obtain profitable business by being the only player.
But wait! You're a _service_ business. You charge to provide the service of dealing with polluted soil. Even if your competitor 'stole' your technology they would still have operating costs, just like you do. Liberating your technology doesn't mean they can do it and you can't. That's the nice bit about ideas and such: we can all have them w/o taking anything away from anyone else.
As usual, I invite any-sayers to read this before applying flamage to my comments. And actually read it, dammmit.
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
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
A government entity, though, CAN show up to your front door with guns and force you do do whatever they'd like.
You don't seem to realize that a lot of slashdotters don't mind -- as long they're the ones holding the guns.
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.
After that expires, though, it's free for everyone to use... Until that time, though, it's yours to do with whatever you want.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Basically saying "you have patents - our backed monopoly statement of your invention - that we issued, but because you are monopoly you have to share it" really strikes me as a bit hypocritical.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
A government entity, though, CAN show up to your front door with guns and force you do do whatever they'd like.
Which you didn't do as the government documents that you didn't follow were in a Microsoft format.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
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.
Or, he (his company) would go bankrupt because he can't compete with the superior assets/resources/cash his competition has. In other words, he gets robbed mafia-style ('this is my turf/business') just because he wasn't the first despite having a superior product/service.
And I read the link you gave and its terribly flawed. It acts under the assumption that big businesses wouldn't be deterred or punished for corporate espionage, which is utter bullshit. It makes the (flawed) statement that it applies even less to software, when in fact the theft of source code is not uncommon (HL2 source code theft anyone?)
This of course means that you are ignoring the fact that they have costs associated with the research and development of their new discovery that their competitors do not have to bear. As such, they *cannot* be more efficient, and so to allow recoupment of that investment, they are given exclusivity for a while.
Remember, pure software patents are not awarded in Europe. The things that would make it patentable is if it would be a new complete product.
In Denmark, it has been discussed if software for making a chicken in an oven perfect is patentable. And I think the discussion ended with a no. But an oven that uses the software to make perfect chickens are patentable.
One aspect you leav out is new establishments ability to establish themselves. Without some sort of protection, the innovative new buisiness hoping to produce some product will quickly die due to some bigger company 'sharing' their shiny idea. I say the patents need to stay, but only for a short period of time.
I know of a UK company that was raided by government officials (DTI) on instruction by the EU after it colluded with others on the price of monomers. Yes, you can get bitchslapped even if you are in the EU. The EU has a responsibility to step in when there is an abuse of the normal market system and to monitor things when there are only a few suppliers.
Where Microsoft went wrong was not just effectively ignoring the EU at the earlier stages but then repeat offending. If you ignore a legislator they don't tend to be happy.
Actually, I support grandparent. Developing a new technology is almost always more expensive than reverse-engineering it.
If competitors could license the technology for a reasonable price and still operate more efficiently, then I'd agree with you, grandparent's company needs to shape up. As it stands, with the little information we're given we have no reason to assume that they're working inefficiently.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Well, then you are ill informed.
The EU is first and foremost a trade organization, the entire point of the EU is to ensure that we have an open market with unrestricted competition.
There are many examples of huge fines leveled at European companies that violated antitrust laws.
Unlike the US government the EU is not just there to prop up big business, it actually tries to keep companies in line and keep fair competition alive in the market, even when it's at the expense of some company.
-- To dream a dream is grand, but to live it is divine. -- Leto ][
"we are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
You Sir, need to acquire the very useful skill of comprehension.
The actual press release would be a very useful start to find out what all this is really about.
Among other things, it explains very early on what the fines are for:
The European Commission has sent a Statement of Objections (SO) to Microsoft for failing to comply with certain of its obligations under the March 2004 Commission decision (see IP/04/382)
Now if you could remove your head from that orifice of yours so that you can put your eyes on the article, you'll soon find your point entirely demolished.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
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
You're either extremely ill informed or a just an idiot.
The EU is fining Microsoft because SUN made a complaint against them which the EU found to be true, since then they have been attempting to make sure Microsoft is conforming to the sanctions the EU laid against them for what they had done.
The EU is not a nation, it is a trade organisation set up to facilitate trade amonst it's member states and takes action against a lot of EU companies.
Microsoft agreed how much it should be charging for it's protocols and then decided to charge a higher amount than the one agreed.
So now that you are aware of the facts I expect not to see any such nonsense posting from you on this matter again.
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.
There's a difference in philosophy in this. One angle is that you should have patents so you can protect your position by legal monopoly. Result if you have the best technology no one can compete. In this area it works OK because the margin the new technology gives is probably enough that it leaves you the better but not overwhelmingly better choice on price and performance.
But if the competitors were given the freedom to use the technology competition would be purely on your corporate efficiency and therefore better for the consumer and the economic principle of "best use of scarce resource" is more fully met.
What is a new thought to me is that the holding of a patent in a narrow band case could actually be a spur rather than road block to innovation. If things are that close any other party coming up with new ideas that improve things will tip the balance.
The philosophy comes in the choice of best for consumers versus the best for the provider. I still think patents in any scenario are better for the provider and that is the point of them.
Yeah, hold the polluted world to ransom so you can make a buck.
There must be more contaminated soil in your country than the volume you can process.
So the patent system has turned you into extortionists through a false "scarcity of resources" scam.
nice
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
The conclusion was drawn by an independent assessor chosen by Microsoft.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Smells like a troll.
Obviously, you have no knowledge of the real world, outside the software world. You say, "You provide a service." What exactly does that mean? We do something no one else does, something no other company wants to do. They prefer to build giant landfills and pile up all the contaminated soils in them; because it gives them never-ending revenue. By stealing out technology, and driving us out of the few projects we do manage to overcome in terms of government inertia, they could get rid of us innovative upstarts, and go back to landfilling.
I'm glad you choose to live in a world of unlimited serfdom, where gigantic megacorporations control all the technologies out there, and new ideas are instantly "owned" by those capable of either mass marketing them fastest, or are driven into the ground by competitors capable of spending new companies into the ground. I'm also glad that in this specific instance, when you are talking about MY company, that you'd rather see the contaminated soils end up incinerated and landfilled, rather than decontaminated. Why? Because sure as hell, I can tell you that my company will not give away our expertise/technology for free; we will keep our remaining trade secrets secret, and take them to our grave (in a world without patents).
I'm a libertarian, but you sound like a libertarian crank; there ARE barriers to entry in various markets, there are sunken costs that are impossible to recover without patent protection.
As to stealing our equipment having nothing to do with patents? My point is that trade secret isn't enough; the "construction" business, which is ostensibly what we are in, is a dirty business. Our patents protect our technology; not secrets. Any sort of trade secret will be overwhelemed by corporate espionage, and not necessarily the high-tech kind.
I'm sorry that you think we should go out of business, but I think you don't know how business really works. Business isn't a cut and dry world of my operating costs are lower than other peoples operating costs, therefore I win. Business is a cutthroat world where you have to manipulate every advantage you can. Furthermore, if you are the little guy, you cannot be marginally superior; you have to be economically and technologically superior in every sense of the word; and without patent protection, there IS no such thing as technological superiority, and there is NO reason for us to develop better technologies, technologies which the "big guys" have no interest in pursuing.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
This is not a matter of whether they got their monopoly through fair dealing, or even whether the competition is good enough.
It's a matter of making competition *possible*.
As long as they have an effective monopoly, they are not allowed to lock others out of the market. They do not have to actively *help* their competitors, but they may not block them from competing.
Let's take an example. Unless an office suite is virtually 100% compatible with Microsoft Office, it cannot fly, in the sense that it can never achieve significant market penetration. If you build a suite that is 100x as "good" as MS Office, but lacks interoperability with the legacy of the MS monopoly, it will not succeed.
Now, by preventing you from interoperating with MS products, MS is preventing you from competing. Not by doing a better job than you (winning the competition), but by leveraging their position as a monopoly (blocking market entry). The latter is detrimental to the market, and illegal in some areas.
By forcing them to allow competition (by e.g. demanding that interoperability be possible for competitors to achieve via availability of specs), you are not helping the competitors compete, you are making it possible for competition to exist. The potential competitors still have to pull off the competition part of it themselves, building the software, marketing it, etc..
The difference is that with forced interoperability it is *possible* for a competitor to succeed, if they do a good job, whereas without it, it is *impossible* for a competitor to succeed.
*shrug* Our licensing costs are quite reasonable, and the cost savings between our process and a standard landfill process are substantial. The delta between these two is quite small compared to the revenue of these giant companies that normally do waste disposal.
The primary barrier to adoption of our technology is inertia, not our patent.
And no, there isn't more polluted soil than we can process, because we're a technology company, not a construction contractor. We sell soil washing machines, and soil washing expertise, not the actual in-out process. Do you suggest we just give everything away to the multi-billion dollar corporations we are trying to compete with?
And if we do give it away, exactly how should we pay the bills so that we can continue to develop newer and better technologies?
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
There's a problem with your reasoning.
.01% .
We're a small company. We've spent years developing this technology, and a substantial percentage of our (group) personal savings (which is a small amount; probably no more than one to two million). But this money was everything we had.
Why should we develop this technology for free? Why should we just give it away? Without a patent possibility, we wouldn't have started, the technology would not have existed, and the consumer would be worse off.
Do we believe our technology is novel and unique? Yes, very much so, because the other players in this industry have no interest in cleaning; they'd rather build landfills.
We're not just a new way to "clean" soil. We're the only way to clean soil, and we're the only company that is looking at cleaning soil. Other companies sort and separate, or they landfill, or incinerate, or stabilize (which means turn soil into concrete). We take dirty soil, and make clean soil. Period. It's not just an economic question, we're quantitatively different, and we can do it cheap, too.
The issue is our competitors are multibillion dollar corporations, and they have long term exclusive contracts with the various government authorities responsible for implementing consent decrees, or harbor management. I guess we could just decide to be charitable, and throw away our life savings to increase the profits of one of these giants by
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
You are confusing a patent discussion with an environmental one. I fully support incentives to keep the world green. I don't support patents. These two ideas are in no way mutually exclusive.
However, this statement also leaves me with a couple of questions: if they don't actually do what you do, then why do they want your secrets? and beyond that, I suggest that this is another example of the evils of patents: Your company would rather see more pollution than allow competition. hmmm, maybe you aren't part of the solution?
That means you are charging for your time, as opposed to charging for an item. Since an hour of time is an hour of time is an hour of time anyone providing a service has the same costs. An hour of time. This is important when discussion patents, because (presumably) you have a machine that allows you to perform the task in a lesser time than your competitors. This means that you can charge less than they do and still profit from the job -- and presumably it's not a nickel savings (since they are interested in appropriating your idea), so until they implement your idea you can not only undercut them, but you can increase your profit as well, and since you've undercut them you get more business. Out of all this extra profit you can pay back your R&D. (Real business doesn't set it's price on costs, but on what the market will pay -just ask the RIAA).
Methinks you have this backwards: I choose to live in a world where no one 'owns' ideas... this 'owning' of ideas is completely unnatural. There is no natural exclusivity with regards to ideas. Quite the opposite: Humankind has gotten where we have by sharing ideas; not hoarding them.
This is no fact. The only fact in this discussion is that the artificial barriers we have in place today provide a mechanism by which a business may exclude others in hopes of a profit. This has lead to organizations (like Microsoft for example) that try and build multi-billion dollar software programs in one sitting. For this endeavor it just might require copyright protection to get a payback. Contrast with Linux et.al and consider that if Linux were written by one company it would probably also have cost in the billions. Yet Linux exists and it exists in an un-copyright: where anyone can re-use someone else's code without paying. And worse for your argument is BSD, where I can not only take your code for free, I don't even give you back my changes!
Now apply this idea to patents: most ideas (perhaps 99.9999%) are neither new nor novel. They are a 0.001% increment over everything that the inventor knew before. If instead of trying to build it all yourself (even if you interpret this to mean: everything in public domain, 'cause no one builds *everything* themselves), you collaborate and (hey this fits you perfect!) make your money by offering your service in a competitive environment. Like Red Hat does.
With this collaborative approach humans progress (just like we have for thousands of years) and no one needs to sink a billion dollars in r&d.
If, after all this, we discover that there is still something mankind _requires_ that simply costs too much then we can generally expect the government will provide appropriate incentives etc to make it worthwhile. Like they do with environmental incentives: they offer rebates and grants to create and innovate something that current economic models make very unprofitable. And it works. Companies make and sell solar panels and they made them and sold them long before it was remotely profitable. For the average home,
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
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
All men are mortal.
Socrates was a man.
Therefore, all men are named Socrates.
All men are mortal.
All mortals are called Socrates
Therefore, all men are named Socrates.
There fixed it for you.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
I'm not so sure the reasoning is flawed except that there might be exceptions to every set of considerations that need a different solution.
Plus now you have added details it is clear you don't compete in the same business (soil cleaning) but in disposal. I might have also misunderstood soil to mean the stuff plants grow in but you might mean (apology that this might sound like trivialising something I obviousbly know nothing about directly, I just want to simplify) washing the stuff (soil?) disposed of in life?
That leads me to ask wouldn't trade secrets work? The point of a patent was always to get ideas put into the public domain for everyone to see. What you wrote gives me the impression of using the patent as protection and therefore the intention not to share. It's that contradiction that always gets me with a patent, share it but no one should use it (without license) or keep it secret and be the only player in the market.
Your situation actually reminds me of another area which is development of drugs and treatments. We obviously want them but to actually develop some of them and put them through all required trials is so expensive even large companies couldn't be expected to shoulder it without some protection. I'm still uncomfortable with it and try to think what a better solution would be.