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.
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.
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
<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.
Well, according to the actual article released by the EC, the documentation Microsoft provided was reviewed by the Monitoring Trustee (Professor Neil Barrett, a tech expert chosen from a list of people provided by Microsoft) as well as TAEUS, the EC's technical advisors.
See the FAQ for more information.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.