Microsoft Gives In To the EU

An anonymous reader writes with word that Redmond Developer News is reporting that Microsoft has given in to EU threats of further fines. The company has opened up a whole host of protocols, including the Exchange protocol, under a license, the terms of which are not known. No other news outlet has picked up this story so far.

Comments

Wont satisfy Critics?

[sr180]

Their moves wont satisfy critics, because they will do everything in their power to stop Open Source from using these protocols.

Re:Wont satisfy Critics?

[Tim C]

In which case they'll almost certainly still be in violation of the terms of the court ruling. The intention was to open up the protocols and APIs for everyone, not just for those few companies with deep pockets and clever lawyers.

Not Free

[Anonymous Coward]

FTA:
Of course, the licenses are not free. And, to a large extent, Microsoft is bowing to the European Commission, which decreed the company must make the interfaces public so rivals can compete on what they claim will be a more level playing field.

It appears that this wont make its way into the Open Source community; however, it does open up the market to competition. More competition is better than zero competition.

Re:Not Free

[jimicus]

Who is going to want to compete in making an alternative exchange server other than Free software proponents and perhaps Apple.

Don't underestimate Apple. They've got a server product, it supports some of the most common things served today out of the box (such as HTTP, LDAP - don't know if they've also got an IMAP server in there but I'd think so).

I reckon they'd love to implement 100% exchange compatability.

I am sure that this term will be in the license

[jonwil]

"The specifications covered by this license cannot be used in programs released under the GPL" (or rather, license terms that are intended to have the same effect without mentioning the GPL by name)

Binary protocol translation modules

[Mathinker]

What is the state of the parallel open protocols? If their functionality is well-developed, an altruist with deep enough pockets might be able to release binary-only plugin modules which translate between protocols. Or perhaps a binary-only proxy server application which does that.

Unfortunately, I would guess that Microsoft's license tries to deal with this problem. Probably in a way analogous to Numerical Recipes' clause:

(ii) our software is bound into the programs in such a manner that it cannot be accessed as individual routines and cannot practicably be unbound and used in other programs. Specifically, under this license, your program user must not be able to use our programs as part of a program library or ``mix-and-match'' workbench.

Too bad the EU couldn't force them to go totally open.

Re:Is IMAP open enough for ya?

[Alphager]

MS Exchange Server has supported IMAP for years.

If an organization really, honestly, truly wants to not use Outlook... NOBODY is forcing them to. But it's so much easier to whine and moan.

Exchange is the best product of it's kind out there. Ever try using Notes? Yech... what a train wreck. How about Openview? Disaster. Oh wait!! Let's use Fetchmail! Troll. It was never about the emails (who the hell uses exchange because of the emails?!); it was about the fricking calendaring functionality which is NOT available to non-MS programs.

Microsoft Gives In To the EU?

[ChameleonDave]

The multinational corporation Microsoft has complied with the law, and this is reported as "Microsoft Gives In To the EU". I wonder whether the headline would have read "Microsoft Gives In To the US" if the laws in question has been American.

They seem to have trouble

[rolfwind]

buying votes in Europe. I'm not saying they haven't, but they don't have the system locked up like they do have here.

And America is losing power to influence the world. Most of this is because on the horizon is the vision that they won't be THE dominant player anymore that can strongarm anybody they please, like they were for most of the 20th Century, because of a variety of factors (EU gaining power, China, US own economy and debt).

Microsoft's paid-for Congressman will be doing less good (for them) in the rest of the world as time moves on.

Seen it all before

[valentyn]

This is the same spin we've seen before. I've got a news item from last August on paper that says *exactly* the same thing ("Microsoft buigt voor Brussel" - meaning MS gives in). The one-but-latest news came from the EU a couple of weeks ago, saying "You know, these protocols aren't innovative at all, your fee is too high", so now it's MS's turn again: "Hey, we finally open up, here are all our protocols, for a most reasonable fee that we don't exactly know yet".

The lawsuit *is* about the licensing. It is not about the protocols. Saying "you'll get the protocols but we'll define the licensing and the fees next time" is like saying "I will make you rich, and I'll define rich for you".

First I was about to joke ..

[Qbertino]

First I was about to joke and write something like 'MS gives in to representative body of 400 Million people' but then I noticed that even this can't be taken for granted. I'm glad the EU has enough self-respect to tell MS who's boss when it comes to anti-competitive behaviour.

Then again MS was delaying the game to draw attention off the fact that they're defending their monopoly much more effectively in another place: Standards, closed, non-compatible Data Formats and Software Patents. The former two are great devices of market control. The EU ought to do something about that. Probalby MS wasn't really interested in lobbying in this as, as giving in here isn't so much a loss for them as it would be if they where required to comply to an amount of standard IT standards. Now *that* would be the appropriate punishment for MS.

I'll rest when MS has 50% market share or less.