EU Rejects Microsoft Royalty Proposal

pallmall1 writes "According to MSNBC, The Financial Times has reported that the EU is going to drastically reduce or even eliminate Microsoft's proposed royalties on interoperability information required to be released by the EU's antitrust ruling issued three years ago. According to a confidential EU document, "Microsoft will be forced to hand over to rivals what the group claims is sensitive and valuable technical information about its Windows operating system for next to no compensation...". Even Neil Barrett, the expert picked by both Microsoft and the EU to oversee Microsoft's compliance with the 2004 ruling, says a zero percent royalty would be 'better.'"

Comments

I want to get paid!!!

[denobug]

I think MS should make their info more available. But then again, I do want to get paid if I do something. It's hard to ask someone to fork over something without compensation.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear denobug,

I would like millions or zillions or billions or thousands or hundreds or tens of dollars. I'll work. Trust me. Whatever information I have, I can provide.

Sincerely,

Your Boss
(now get back to work, deadbeat!)

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[zappepcs]

Hold on there cowboy...
I'm pretty sure you won't have much problem finding or getting the same information from F/OSS software!

Just because MS wants to suck the money out of every pocket they can, use monopolistic practices, mafia like business tactics and other ills often mentioned on /. doesn't mean that they deserve that money.

If MS really wanted to be nice, they could be. They don't. They *WANT* to keep sucking all the money they can from all the pockets that they can, and will use any and all tactics that they can get away with to continue to do so.

For me, that is just business. There are worse businesses in this world. It's also why I choose F/OSS now without even thinking about what I might lose by not having MS products in my household. Whatever the alternative is, I feel better knowing that I won't be fscked in a couple years to get an upgrade or patch.

Getting paid for doing something is one thing, being forced to stop monopolistic practices is another.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[Scarblac]

Remember, this is a court order, it's part of a penalty they get for breaking the law. The court decides the terms. Originally they were allowed to pick a reasonable fee themselves (IIRC) but if the court decides they abused that and set an unreasonable fee, well I would certainly expect them to order the info to be free.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[hxnwix]

Yeah, why should they have to give away specs?

Specs that are only valuable because they allow you to interoperate with their software.

Software which is, itself, actually worth something.

Software which you must buy if you want to be able to interoperate with others using it.

Oh, *wrings hanky and cries*, whatever has the world come to!? Poor diminutive microshoft, oooohhh pooooooooor poooooooor widdle micwoswoft.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's not. This is a commission action. Microsoft was not allowed to pick the fee, they have been proposing fees and the commission ignores them. Beware, this is going to happen to other US businesses, not just Microsoft. The EU wants their part of the pie, don't be fooled into thinking this is about Microsoft. Anything that prevents Europe from promoting their companies over American ones will be targeted. See also Apple and the EU this week. Careful who you choose for a bedfellow.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Take this kind of reasoning to the logical conclusion:

The iPod should publish it's interfaces so that people can make competing iPod software.

Sony should be forced to reveal all of the hardware interfaces in the PS/3 so that people can make their own add-on devices.

Google should be forced to publish their search engine core to prevent vendor lock-in to Google search.

etc, etc.

Industries are allowed to make money on their proprietary information, it's called capitalism.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[Opportunist]

Not forcing MS to hand over the patents deals the same message: Don't start an IT biz here 'cause you can't be compatible with MS without first shelling out a good deal of your dough.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[pravuil]

It's seems greedy to think they can get something without some compensation. The anti-trust suit was expected but concessions are concessions.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes yes, we've heard it all before. Why not just set up a cronjob (Sorry, Scheduled Task) to post this inacurate and uneducated drivel? It could save a lot of time and effort: you wouldn't even need to spend time ignoring the replies that keep pointing out how wrong you are!

don't start or remain a tech company in Europe.

Phillips, Nokia, Sony Ericson, Siemans and the hundreds of other small and medium technology companies all agree with you.

P.S: Remind me, which country convicted Microsoft of abusing it's monopoly position first?

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[Virtual_Raider]

Getting paid for doing something is one thing, being forced to stop monopolistic practices is another. Quite true but then again, its one thing to force a business to stop their harmful monopolistic practices and another to force that same business to give business assets for free. MS by all means must be forced to comply with the law and play nice. But that intellectual property is legally theirs. At least I am unaware of any claims to the contrary, please correct me politely if I'm wrong. It doesn't matter if they paid for it or brewed it in-house, the point is that it's theirs. To break the monopoly they must make it available? fine, but it will be made available to other businesses, why should those get a free ride? They want to build competing products to sell for profit, let them buy the specifications. Sounds fair to me unless I'm missing something. If somebody on the F/OSS community wants access, they too should pay, they can always ask for donations to cover the costs. What would be the flaw on this reasoning?

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[Ayal.Rosenthal]

That's how things should work. MS has not stopped both large tech-cos and start-ups from encroaching in its business here in the US because the regulatory environment fosters innovation. You need to beat a competitor because you create a better program, not because they've given you the keys to the kingdom.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[Benaiah]

And fair enough.
The EU is protecting the EU. They could make a law banning Windows all together and it would be LAW.

They want other companies to be able to produce something that resembles competition. Ie an o/s that can run windows executables. And hey Governments can do what they want with their own laws because they have their own sovereignty. Just because you Americans allow yourselves to be bribed by every corporation you have doesn't mean every other government is.

I think that what they are doing is a great step forward for interoperability.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[slugstone]

We would do the same thing as EU, But microsoft is a US company. Hey that what tariff are for.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[temcat]

What intellectual property? It's not copyrights - MS is not required to give code. It's not patents and not trademarks. What EU wants is the info on how the code works, so that other software vendors could make software that properly interoperates with the products of a monopolist that Microsoft is. This is only fair.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[temcat]

Yes, yes and yes - if these companies are deemed monopolies.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[Opportunist]

The problem is, though, that you can have the best product in the world, if it's not compatible with existing technology it's worthless. You could create the perpetuum mobile but if the energy it produces is not compatible with the ways we have to harness and use it, it's practically useless.

This might be too strong an example, since with technology THAT superior people would go out of their way to find some way to use the energy, but I think you get my point. Compatibility is what makes or breaks a product, no matter how good the product itself is.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[Vihai]

The iPod should publish it's interfaces so that people can make competing iPod software.

Yes

Sony should be forced to reveal all of the hardware interfaces in the PS/3 so that people can make their own add-on devices.

Yes

Google should be forced to publish their search engine core to prevent vendor lock-in to Google search.

No Now, try to find out why...

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[aussie_a]

When you break the law, you can't keep the spoils that you gained illegally. The EU is attempting to take Microsoft's illegal gains away from them.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[jabuzz]

While the interlectual property is theirs, and legally constituted court has decided that as punishment for breaking the law they have to hand it over possibly for no cost. When you break the law you don't get to decided what your punishment is, and the courts are empowered to seize your assets as part of the punishement.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is not so much the monopoly Microsoft has. It's not Gates' fault that people are stupid and buy crap; though one should remember that monopolies are bad for innovation due to lack of competition. The problem is that they are abusing it to
1) prevent others from entry into the market (by buying, suing or EEEing them, not due to a superior product) and
2) force their way into other markets (by monopoly in other markets instead of providing a better product).

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[Fizzl]

Google should be forced to publish their search engine core to prevent vendor lock-in to Google search.

No Now, try to find out why...

And as Google willingly publishes a ton of API's to make it possible to interoperate and integrate their technologies, I think they are really going out of their way to play nice.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[Bert64]

And wouldnt even be necessary if they had complied with standards in the first place.
The EU should force microsoft to comply with published standards, or if necessary extend and publish the extensions to those standards (and propose the standard be updated accordingly).

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[Bert64]

> The iPod should publish it's interfaces so that people can make competing iPod software.

You mean usb-storage? iTunes just uploads the data via usb storage, and i believe it creates a playlist too but there are already free tools for creating those anyway...
Also, you can buy a different kind of MP3 player without being at a disadvantage. If you use something other than windows you will often find you have issues interoperating with poorly designed services.

> Sony should be forced to reveal all of the hardware interfaces in the PS/3 so that people can make their own add-on devices.

Yes they should, unfortunately that would cause games manufacturers to leave the PS3 (PS/3 is what IBM would have called it) and develop for the other more proprietary consoles.
On the other hand, you can buy a cell based machine from IBM and connect an nvidia videocard to it, and thus you have a similar machine which you can program.

> Google should be forced to publish their search engine core to prevent vendor lock-in to Google search.

Google is a service rather than a product, you can choose to use it or not, and if you choose not to you aren't at a disadvantage to others. People don't send you files that "require google". Also, google has no method to lock their customers in, if someone else creates a better search engine then google will have no choice but to improve or die. windows on the other hand, keeps customers locked in using proprietary protocols and formats, regardless of how superior any of the competitors are.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody needs to make competing iPod software if you have already paid for an iPod, there's no lock-in on the search engines, there are lots of them just choose anotherone if you don't like google, and yes, if there was some necessity for competition on PS/3 hardware add-ons then that would be fair.

But lets be fair here, computers are the most important tools out there, and having a monopoly on that and telling people how to use them and forcing them to buy software from only one vendor is evil.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[inasra]

The iPod should publish it's interfaces so that people can make competing iPod software.

I use my 60 GB Video iPod with Amarok under Fedora with absolutely no problems.
So you were saying?...

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[gratemyl]

There is that little phenomena called "vendor lock-in". We (EU) have anti-trust laws against that. What Microsoft is doing is making sure that once you use a single Microsoft product (e.g. Windows XP) it becomes difficult to move away from Microsoft - we have surely all seen it. What the EU is doing is working to reduce the amount of vendor lock-in for Microsoft. It is making sure that users have more of a choice about which OS, which Office Product, which Movie Player they use.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I love how you think that Phillips ($36B revenue), Nokia ($54B revenue), Sony ($67B revenue), and Siemens ($127B revenue) are not large companies.

Microsoft is a small fish compared to 3 out of 4 of the "small to medium" companies in your list at $46B in revenue.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[Bearhouse]

Very true. Of course M$ learned from the (old) IBM that one of the best ways to protect your market was to ignore standards, or undermine them, whilst publicly supporting them. Not too sure about the 'extend and publish' part - that's one way that M$ undermines existing standards - by 'extending' them, (making everything else incompatible). http://www.consortiuminfo.org/ has lots of info on this

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[ctomer]

Forcing Microsoft to give up its IP Microsoft is not being forced to give up its IP. It is simply being asked to document its APIs. This does not mean that Microsoft has to provide the source code for its implementation of certain protocols.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Note to parent: check your sarcasm filter.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Although my grammar is not perfect, it should be fairly clear that the "small and medium companies" belong to the class "other" and that "Phillips, Nokia, Sony Ericson, Siemans" are a seperate class. The "other" adds confusion. On re-reading, the following phrasing would be better:

"Phillips, Nokia, Sony Ericson, Siemans and hundreds of small and medium technology companies all agree with you."

This post brought to you by the letters "A" and "R"

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[ady1]

No one is denying their right to make money.
The only thing which is being asked is to not use their market share to shutdown the competition. They are not asking them to provide the source code of windows kernel to linux guys. All they are asking is to provide a way for competition to connect with windows using THIER OWN FREAKIN CODE and not Microsoft's.
All they want to be provided is the documentation.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[ajs318]

The iPod should publish it's (sic) interfaces so that people can make competing iPod software.

There are already moves afoot to force Apple to open up their Digital Restrictions Management schemes in order that other vendors can sell music compatible with the iPod. TTBOMK the protocols for transferring songs and creating playlists are already understood, and the DRM is the last stumbling block remaining. Anyone already can shunt unprotected songs to an iPod.

Sony should be forced to reveal all of the hardware interfaces in the PS/3 so that people can make their own add-on devices.

Soon, they will be. DVD region locking is already illegal in the EU -- if you buy a DVD player on the Continent, it will play DVDs bought anywhere in the world. TTBOMK it's even OK to bring one into the UK if you cut off the mains plug (so it's not in a working condition and therefore is considered spare parts, as opposed to an electrical appliance). Region locking is considered anti-competitive behaviour. Vendor-locking of video games systems is likely to be addressed, and by my reckoning about 15-20 years in future. It isn't happening now because the influential politicians are mainly of a generation that predate video gaming as a mainstream activity. But those people will be replaced -- all it takes is the ticking of the clock. Some of us remember the Atari 2600 and how towards the end, the only decent games available for it were being made by third parties ..... and some of those people are already junior ministers working their way up through the machinery.

Google should be forced to publish their search engine core to prevent vendor lock-in to Google search.

Google already do publish enough information to enable a third party to:

1. Write an alternative user interface front-end which would work seamlessly with the Google search back-end
2. Write an alternative search back-end which would work seamlessly with the Google user interface front-end.

What Microsoft are being ordered to open up isn't their intellectual property, but part of the usage instructions. Admittedly it's a part that only means anything to rather advanced users, but nonetheless it's information to which users of Microsoft products are entitled. If I buy a guitar amplifier, I expect to be able to plug any guitar into it -- not just that manufacturer's guitars. And in the back of the handbook, it will give me the all information someone skilled in electronics would need to know in order to present a suitable signal to this amplifier -- the input impedance and expected voltage level. And in all probability, the connector will be a 6.3 mono jack. Now all I have to do is design my guitar pickup to have that voltage output into that impedance input and present it on that connector. More to the point, according to the law of the land, the amplifier manufacturer cannot stop me. If they tried to use some bizarre proprietary connector, any luthier would be within their rights to copy that connector for the purpose of making an instrument compatible with that amplifier.

Similarly, if I buy a Microsoft server, I should be able to choose any manufacturer's client to work with that server -- and if I buy a Microsoft client, I should be able to choose any manufacturer's server to work with it. By withholding information that people have a right to know on the flimsy pretext that most people would not know what to do with it anyway, Microsoft have created a monopoly for themselves -- a monopoly which might not have existed, had third parties been in a position to supply clients interoperable with Microsoft servers and servers interoperable with Microsoft clients. Unfortunately, withholding that information in the first place was actually illegal, and Microsoft must be punished.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[LinuxDon]

Also, Google is a free (as in beer) service.
If they charged a hefty fee (as Microsoft does) and were the de-facto standard (as Microsoft is) than that would certainly change things in my perspective.
I believe that customers should then be able to -demand- an open API (which Google also gives away for free at this point).

I even think that if Microsoft wanted to license Google's services to rebrand it, they could even do that for a fair price even though they're the competition. Now THAT is fair competition and the free market working at it's best.

Microsoft on the other hand, does nothing of the above.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[Wraith, The]

What standards ? In this area of connecting server and client software Microsoft is setting a lot of the standards.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[Wraith, The]

The court order just tell them to make the protocols available at a non-discrimitory basis. It does not state the height of the compesation to charge. The discussion in this article is about a report about the height of this compensation. A report does not make for a court order. However the report could lead to the EU demanding that the fees Micrsoft demands for these protocols a slashed and then again a fine if Microsoft fails to comply.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[rhyder128k]

But they have gained their position by consistently breaking the law. Telling them not to do it as much in future isn't going to undo the damage and let other businesses back into the market.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[MichaelSmith]

And as Google willingly publishes a ton of API's to make it possible to interoperate and integrate their technologies, I think they are really going out of their way to play nice.

And in any event their main interface is stock standard html.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[BlueTrin]

You imagine the amount of work to provide that ? It is not free, I guess you just have to bash MS and ignore economic/financial issues to get modded up on /. anyway.

I am sorry but I do not know many companies who provide all the interoperabilities documentation for free, UNLESS IT SERVED THEIR INTERESTS

By curiosity what would be the equivalent on MacOS ? Has it been done ? (and I am not speaking about kernel specs, but actual useful specs to develop useful applications)

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[TheNetAvenger]

And wouldnt even be necessary if they had complied with standards in the first place.
The EU should force microsoft to comply with published standards, or if necessary extend and publish the extensions to those standards (and propose the standard be updated accordingly).


Ok, this sounds like MS has been really bad, but it comes down to some simple slight of hand on the part of both the EU and MS.

I have a couple of friends that work in Brussels within the EU and the main reason MS is pushed around is that they are an American company that has a lot of control in Europe. This is a no no in the world of the EU if they are going to circumvent the US's power in the market, especially the technical markets.

So the EU is going to claim MS hasn't done what they wanted no matter what MS does if they can use it as leverage to keep American company interests from having control in any area of technology inside the emerging EU market.

If MS was 'from' Belgium, there would never have been a issue with anything they did in the first place.

So as much as everyone likes to jump on MS, this is more of a political movement than having anything to do with MS not jumping fast enough or high enough when the EU wants.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[spikedvodka]

What standards ? In this area of connecting server and client software Microsoft is setting a lot of the standards.

It's very hard to say that something is a standard unless you publish it... an unpublished standard is very similar to a few other of my favorites...
"World Famous in Ireland"
"Slightly Pregnant"
"The dumbest thing I've ever heard... Today"

What it seems like to me, is that Microsoft is trying to get the following system in place (Bad Car Analogy Warning)
You buy a new SUV, and need new tires, you have to go back to the Microsoft Dealer, because your new "MS MudRover" Only take tires with a diameter of 17.428 inches and a 12 inch width... You also can't get new rims, becuase the MS MudRover uses a proprietary 19 Pin/lugnut system to attach the rum to the axel, oh yeah, and they have a patent on said 19 Pin system, as well as making 17.428Inch diameter tires with a 19 inch width... In short, Vendor Lock In, becuase nothing else works

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[bytesex]

The result of which would be the same if you just assumed that MS is a dominant force and as such, has the moral obligation to make their products interoperable with anyone else's. Just as it is reasonable to assume that _within_ MS, they have all of their formats and protocol specs documented, simply because new people get to go to work there for the first time almost every day. Just as it is reasonable to assume that no such company could ever emerge from Belgium. They may be rancunous, but they're not stupid in Brussels, and the result, as I outlined above, is just the same.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

You imagine the amount of work to provide that ? It is not free, I guess you just have to bash MS and ignore economic/financial issues to get modded up on /. anyway. But it's Microsoft we're talking about. They made enough (extra) money with their unfair business practices in the past. I don't really get their intentions here though, because the next EU fine (if they continue to piss the EU off with their retarded delays and half-asses solutions) might be higher than the costs of providing the information asked for.

Microsoft is aggressively selling millions of game consoles at a high loss to undercut the competition and yet want money for something that's supposed to be freely available for everyone. Meh.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[BlueTrin]

Ok I got you, they HAVE to provide it for free because it is the EU way to fine them ...

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[pla]

The EU is protecting the EU.

True - Except the EU makes tries to enforce its policies worldwide, not just within the EU.

So when the EU finally forces Microsoft out completely, that will count as their choice. But when American companies can't sell "Feta" or "Cheddar" cheese, in America, we have a problem.

The EU just serves to further prove that all sufficiently-large organizations will abuse the power of their position (and I don't say that as though the US hasn't done the same for the last half-century).

Just another Boeing-vs-Airbus dispute, except Microsoft has no European analogue. And that pisses the EU off far, far more than anything Microsoft itself could ever do.


I think that what they are doing is a great step forward for interoperability.

Interoperability with what? I had to explain to a coworker just last week (after she made a v8-specific PDF that no one could open)... If you just tell Acrobat to always save in v4 compatible mode, everyone in the world can read it. Same goes for MS Office. Just save it Word/Excel 98 mode, and plenty of other programs can open it.

Or to put this another way, for a recent contracting job, I wrote a niche-industry software package that outputs a totally opaque closed format. I make the only program that does anything even remotely like it. Should I expect the EU to start threatening me when the first copy ships to somewhere in the EU later this month for "stifling local competition"? I do so hope so, as I have no assets there that they can threaten, and gleefully look forward to telling them to go pound sand...


Someone else already said it, but I'll repeat: EU policies send a very, very clear message - Don't set up shop in the EU.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I wrote a niche-industry software package that outputs a totally opaque closed format. I make the only program that does anything even remotely like it. Should I expect the EU to start threatening me when the first copy ships to somewhere in the EU later this month for "stifling local competition"? I do so hope so, as I have no assets there that they can threaten, and gleefully look forward to telling them to go pound sand...

Has the company selling it been convicted of abusing a monopoly market position, by an EU court of law? No? Then what the hell are you talking about?

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Here you go overrated from a MacOS, Linux, MS Basher ...

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[Jesus_666]

Interoperability with what? I had to explain to a coworker just last week (aftershe made a v8-specific PDF that no one could open)... If you just tell Acrobat to alwayssave in v4 compatible mode, everyone in the world can read it. Same goes for MS Office.Just save it Word/Excel 98 mode, and plenty of other programs can open it.

Unfortunately we're not talking aboit Microsoft Office but about interaction with Windows servers, which uses secret protocols so that no-one but Microsoft can write compatible software. That can't be solved by ticking a checkbox, it can only be solved by either making the specs accessible, giving up the software in question or not being a monopolist anymore. Making the specs available is pretty reasonable.


Or to put this another way, for a recent contracting job, I wrote a niche-industry softwarepackage that outputs a totally opaque closed format. I make the only program thatdoes anything even remotely like it. Should I expect the EU to start threatening me whenthe first copy ships to somewhere in the EU later this month for "stifling local competition"?I do so hope so, as I have no assets there that they can threaten, and gleefully lookforward to telling them to go pound sand...

Of course! ...You are a monopolist that is abusing its power to keep competitors out of the market, right?

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, twist it to your liking.
The point is that they "don't need the money"/"already made the money by abusing their monopolistic position". Further fines would just be the logic consequence if they keep up this attitude.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[SillyNickName4me]

Quite true but then again, its one thing to force a business to stop their harmful monopolistic practices and another to force that same business to give business assets for free. MS by all means must be forced to comply with the law and play nice. But that intellectual property is legally theirs.

I tend to agree with you there, but I also believe that since they already did substantial damage by not complying, it is quite reasonable to demand that they compensate for that.

Paying a fine is no big penalty for Microsoft unless the fine is really absurdly high. Giving out information that enables competition however is a substantial penalty, and in this case I believe a well deserved one.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[nschubach]

Let's be fair here. It's not the U.S. that's corrupt. Your stereotyping the country to a few outspoken and overrated people.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[clickety6]

So when the EU finally forces Microsoft out completely, that will count as their choice. But when American companies can't sell "Feta" or "Cheddar" cheese, in America, we have a problem.

Well, cheddar isn't a protected name - it's regarded as generic. Although seeing the artificially coloured, yellow slices of chewy pap that passes for "cheddar" in the US, you might wish it was protected so at least you'd know you'd be getting a decent piece of cheese! Similarly, in Europe when you get feta cheese or parma ham you know you're getting a decent product and not a cheap rip-off. In the US, you could get feta cheese sprayed from a can and parma ham that has never seen a pig ;-)

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I even think that if Microsoft wanted to license Google's services to rebrand it, they could even do that for a fair price even though they're the competition. Now THAT is fair competition and the free market working at it's best.
Actually, they weren't interrested, nobody was, that's how google got started, they wanted to sell/license their technology

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[bigtomrodney]

By curiosity what would be the equivalent on MacOS ? Has it been done ? The equivalent specs in OSX are open standards like NFS. In fact Apple are in the same position as Linux here because OSX uses Samba too. The problem here isn't that some secret sauce is being forced open to everyone, it's the likes of network protocols that are there to allow communication in the first place are being closed down. It's that Microsoft have made their closed standards the de facto standards.

So what happens when Microsoft don't like what's happening at any time? Do they take their ball and go home?

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[init100]

If MS was 'from' Belgium, there would never have been a issue with anything they did in the first place.

Then I guess the US govenment would do what the EU does now. Let's face it, the US govenment is very protective of US industry vs foreign (such as EU) industries. It is only right that the EU is protective about EU industries vs e.g. US industries. There is a rumor that the US govenment (probably the NSA) obtained information (through signals intelligence or similar methods) about bids from Airbus on some large airplane order. This information was quickly forwarded to Boeing, enabling them to undercut the Airbus bid. I don't know of any strict evidence that this actually happened, but my gut feeling says it's probably true.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[ILikeRed]

From: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_tuncom/major/mtc -00029523.htm

For example, Kerberos is an industry standard for encryption, in which certain
fields are reserved for optional use. Microsoft, however, has used one of those
fields to produce its own proprietary version of the standard. In itself, this
is unobjectionable.

Microsoft, however, has gone one step further: it has manipulated its operating
systems and middleware so that they will use and accept only the Microsoft
version of the Kerberos standard.(16) This is diametrically contrary to the
purpose for which standards, even with optional fields, are developed. Optional
fields are included in standards to enable firms to add information to a
message. Ordinarily, if an optional field is used in creating standard messages,
those messages can still be sent and received among all products that comply
with the standard. In such cases, the information included in the optional field
may simply be ignored. Optional fields are never, however, intended to enable a
firm -- i.e., Microsoft -- to subvert the standard and preclude its widespread
usage.(17)

Thus, by polluting industry standards, such as Java and Kerberos (among others),
Microsoft can further impede the use and development of competing middleware.
Any calls encrypted with Kerberos sent by Microsoft Windows can be read only by
other Microsoft Middleware and not by Novell's middleware. Similarly, Novell's
middleware cannot send calls encrypted with Kerberos (the industry standard),
because Windows will reject them. ...

16. The CCIA explains that "[w]hile the Kerberos Version 5 Microsoft uses
for their security services is a standard, the way they have implemented
Kerberos is not a standard and renders it nearly inoperable with any other
implementation." CCIA White Paper, supra, at 24.

17. Not content with Microsoft's corruption of the Kerberos standard, Microsoft
has filed for a patent on its proprietary version. Consequently, not only will
Microsoft products fail to interoperate with non-Microsoft products (because of
the modification), but Microsoft will not allow anyone else to use its version
unless they purchase a license from Microsoft.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[yahooadam]

Why doesn't MS just pull out of the EU market The EU would crumble without MS supporting their products in the EU, or selling new computers - MS wins Its a bit unfair to force MS to release its IP, especially for no return

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[Endo13]

Microsoft has done this to themselves. They have put themselves in a global monopolistic position that no other company has ever really even come close to. As such, there is no precedent on how to deal with such a company.

They made themselves a huge target, they should be expecting consequences a lot more severe than this.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[init100]

True - Except the EU makes tries to enforce its policies worldwide, not just within the EU.

You mean like the US government telling Russia that they cannot join the WTO if they don't enact the appropriate copyright laws and close down Allofmp3? Or like the US government threatening Sweden with the WTO watchlist for not closing down The Pirate Bay as demanded (they finally did that a year ago, just to have it open three days later).

I'd call that two blatant examples of trying to enforce your own policies worldwide.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[Alchemar]

Microsoft should be paid for the operating system when they sell a license to use the operating system. They should make the information available so that people can use the operating system in order to operate the computer by running software that does what the operator wants. If Microsoft does not wish to sell an operating system that can be used to operate a computer independently, they should redesign the XBox to include IE and Office and sell it as a console. When I buy a console I expect to be forced to run only the software that comes from the manufacturer. When I buy an operating system, I expect it to allow me to operate my computer. By double dipping their "IP rights" Microsoft is selling an operating system that does not let me use a computer for what I want, but for what they are willing to give me. Add to this the fact that Microsoft has also sold me a license to run a programming suite (Java, C#, Visual Basic) on their operating system, I think it is a reasonable assumption that people should be allowed to write programs that the operating system will actually operate.

They wrap your hardware up in drivers, wrap the drivers up with APIs, and then want you to pay to use those APIs. Accessing those APIs is the purpose of an operating system. That is what allows you to operate your hardware.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[Maxwell]

You forgot the part where they illegaly stole the entire market for cars and tires by lying, cheating and ripping off their cusomoers and non-customers alike for billions.

Then they release a new car, with new tires and new specifications and did NOT tell anyone what the specifications are. So you have to blindly buy from microsoft without even knowing what you are buying...at twice the price of the old tires of course!

If we had as much detail about MSFT protocols as you describe about the tires there would be no problem. We don't and that *is* the problem.

JON

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, why don't they do that? Oh that's right, because the EU is one of the single largest markets for Microsoft. If they stopped selling their products here, their revenue would crash overnight and take their stock price with it.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[hxnwix]

Microsoft: would you like us to mod you down today?

*ouch*, my karma!

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[Virgil Tibbs]

Someone else already said it, but I'll repeat: EU policies send a very, very clear message - Don't set up shop in the EU.
And why would one want to set up shop in the US?
cos then Microsoft, Apple or $some-other-big-nasty-company can screw you round the bush, create monopolies and nobody cares...
as far as I can see it the EU is protecting the humanitarian side of bussiness and I appluad that.
Perhaps Google will move its headquarters to Belgium.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[hxnwix]

The iPod should publish it's interfaces so that people can make competing iPod software.

Sony should be forced to reveal all of the hardware interfaces in the PS/3 so that people can make their own add-on devices.

Google should be forced to publish their search engine core to prevent vendor lock-in to Google search. One of these things is not like the others... if you can't figure it out, try google search ;p

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[TheNetAvenger]

about bids from Airbus on some large airplane order. This information was quickly forwarded to Boeing, enabling them to undercut the Airbus bid.

Ok, I don't want to argue US policies, as I currently have vast differences of opinion with the current executive branch leadership in the US.

However, I don't know about the specific Airbus intelligence you are referring to, but you DO REALIZE that the US Govt has been the 'largest' provider of money and subsides to Airbus via that RLI?

It would be a hard argument to make that the US govt has harmed Airbus more than it has helped it, especially since it would not have financially survived without support the US Govt.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[IdleTime]

You must be American...

Only an American is stupid enough to say what you did.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[MBGMorden]

Not to mention that companies under scrutiny would just just to a Linux distro or MacOS (either of which would be happy to have them). Lots of places write their own software or use web based stuff that often already runs on Unix anyways, so migration ain't as hard as it once was.

And the common man will do just as most have always done to get the latest in MS software: copy it from a friend or somebody on the net. A software company can't easily tell home computer users that "we're gonna stop selling to you", because all that usually means is that they're gonna stop receiving the money, not that anybody is gonna stop using the software.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[pla]

I'd call that two blatant examples of trying to enforce your own policies worldwide.

Did you make it two sentences further, or stop reading there?

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[MightyMartian]

If Microsoft had played by the rules, none of this would have happened. They are the abusive monopolist. How this suddenly becomes the EU being abusive after the documented evidence of just how anti-competitive Microsoft is is quite beyond me.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[mabhatter654]

Copyrights, Patents, and other "IP" protection pieces of paoer exist only by the will of the state... That was from the Supreme Court when Lessing tried to reign in the constant upping of the limits. (yes, not related to EU law... but most /.rs are in the US) So technically it is entirely fair game when a company breaks the law to pull it's copyright/patent/trademark protections as punishment!

With that in mind... the EU has requested enough info for other computers to interoperate with windows. What they have repeatedly stated is for enough APIs to be released so Windows file servers can be "black box" on the network and other services can use them. They want the specs for the "wire" into the server. Microsoft is acting like a stalling child here. They keep trying to present all sorts of Windows Server internals that NOBODY is asking for and couldn't use anyway. The EU could do all sorts of other things, but what they are asking is by far the most legally enforceable, minimally precedent setting, thing to ask for. They are not asking for 1 single line of Microsoft code, what they are asking for is instructions how the server with their files acts. Personally, I think the Novell deal (when Microsoft almost settled with the EU) was an attempt to subvert the Samba project by granting them a backdoor to all these restrictions and then haveing novell "agree" that Samba was full of Microsoft IP so nobody else could use it. The key samba developers LEFT Novell before the work was tainted by the "agreement" so now the EU court is back asking for the proper documentation...heck projects like Samba have 75% of what they need reverse engineered, even Microsoft has had to use Samba's documentation because it is better than what the actual MS programmers have!!!

Another poster mentioned that the case should attack Microsoft for what gains they made illegally... opening the file format costs Microsoft LOCK-IN! It's a small amount of money to make the specs... far less than the $400 M the fines are up to, but they won't do it... it removes a cog from their monopoly... which is why it MUST be made to happen!!!!!

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[AusIV]

And it's worth noting that Amarok uses an open source library - libgpod - to interface with the iPod. Not only can Amarok manage an iPod, but anybody who wants to can use the libgpod api to manage iPods in whatever manner they wish.

Now, if Apple were deliberately obscuring the iPod's interface and changing it with a firmware update every time somebody figures out how to put music on an iPod, there might be a case for requiring them to publish its interface, but since anyone can interface with it freely right now, there is no reason for this.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[mabhatter654]

The problem is that getting any other network structure INTO windows requires even more IP problems than simply making your stuff operate with it. Getting file systems and network systems into Windows requires Kernel level access, Microsoft won't grant ANYBODY for free, the license to LOOK costs upwards of $100k. Yes, you can add file systems to windows, but they act like "internet resources" and Windows programs can't use them to actually run programs from... Windows entire system knows ONLY about Windows... there's limits to what you can bolt on.. even for free. It's a shame because I'd love to see driver pack for EXT3, Reiser, NFS, Real Kerberos Directory, etc. but it can't ever happen. The legal hurtles are far higher than learning how to just "talk" to the windows boxes.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[MightyMartian]

Some pretty stupid fucks have become moderators lately. How my post was modded down as Troll is beyond me.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[RightSaidFred99]

Give me a fucking break. You're proposing that the government get their corrupt little hands in the software business and mandate that a private company develop software according to "standards" developed by their competitors and inept committees? There's no nice way to say this - you're a fucking idiot and your idea is the stupidest damn thing I've read in this anti-MS whinefest so far.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[RightSaidFred99]

Too bad these are lies and inaccuracies. Microsoft's Kerberos implementation is working fine for many companies with Linux, Solaris, and many other clients.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[RightSaidFred99]

I have an idea - move to Venezuela. There, your ridiculous socialist ideals will be realized and you can help drive the takeover of private companies by the government. After all, the government is so good at being efficient I'm sure all these companies will be more successful and we'll be much happier when you're finished.

God I can't wait until Venezuela collapses completely and the rabble who used to support Chavez mob and tear him to pieces. Fucking socialist, rabble rousing populist scum.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[Wraith, The]

The issue is not about the content of information (anymore) but about the price of that information.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[SL Baur]

All they want to be provided is the documentation. You didn't RTFA either. The rejection came about because Microsoft was requesting 5.95% of revenues for royalty fees. There's no way anyone can compete against that.

They were convicted of being a monopoly. They're under fire now because they're using their monopoly to drive everyone else out of the market. Gee, I wonder where I've heard that before.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

But only one way - so who is the liar. Ask Ted Tso (the creator of Kerberos) what he thinks of Microsoft's "implementation". Last I heard he wished the format had been able to be made GPL'd, and was not planning on using BSD licensed code in the future.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[init100]

DO REALIZE that the US Govt has been the 'largest' provider of money and subsides to Airbus via that RLI?

It would be a hard argument to make that the US govt has harmed Airbus more than it has helped it, especially since it would not have financially survived without support the US Govt.

I have a hard time believing that. By the way, what is an RLI?

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[Bert64]

Them pulling out would actually benefit everyone but them.
If they were to pull out, and even if they were to come back later, they would generate a lot of distrust among corporate customers. Companies are stupid enough already to buy from a single source, but were that single source to demonstrate just how stupid it is to not have a backup plan, by cutting off the only supply, companies may finally take notice.

Also, the EU would simply operate like any other country where MS doesnt do business, every user would run a warez'd copy. And gradually, companies wanting to be "legit" would have no choice but to use competing software, so you'd see a huge marketshare increase for linux, osx and solaris etc.

By pulling out, MS would massively hurt consumer confidence, and lose a LOT of money... They may also face being sued by their own shareholders.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[Bert64]

It also reminds me of when MS threatened to pull out of south korea because of all the piracy...
They would never actually do this, some legit sales are still better than none... But Korea couldn't afford not to back down because of how much of their infrastructure is dependant upon MS (their proprietary ssl-type system for instance)

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[yahooadam]

at least someone got the point i was trying to make here Even if they didn't do it, but merely threatened to, the EU would most likely have no choice but to crumble, because everyone is so dependant upon MS software

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[TheNetAvenger]

I have a hard time believing that. By the way, what is an RLI?

Not to be mean, but if have not even heard of the US/Airbus RLI or took time to look it up after you see it was mentioned, why even comment that you find this hard to believe?

Seriously, go look it up.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

[Bert64]

It's usually better all round to take the hit and go cold turkey...
It may be hard, but it doesnt stay hard for all that long out of necessity, compared to a slow gradual rehab.

Royalty

[ntufar]

I am not a native English speaker and I read the subject as if Microsoft proposed some kind of royal title to EU bureaucrats or something and they refused.

As for royalty payments, yes, Microsoft is disclosing interoperability protocols and other who want to used should pay, but... Microsoft's protocols are not stat-of-art technology, it is an implementation of ideas that are commonly used in IT industry. NFS is in essence the same thing as CIFS but with different protocol convention.

Thus, Microsoft's hiding interface details is not protection of intellectual property but prevention for other vendors to come along and intercommunicate.

Think of post office. Street addresses are open. Pen, paper and envelops are freely available from different vendors. What if US Post Office would demand a royalty from private currier services and taxi drivers for using of Street naming and house numbering system?

Re:Royalty

[jez9999]

I think something like that actually happened in the UK once - a burglar got attacked by the owner of the home they were trying to burgle, and later sued the owner for loss of earnings.

Re:Royalty

[jez9999]

Sorry, this should've been in response to a different post.....

Re:Royalty

[suv4x4]

As for royalty payments, yes, Microsoft is disclosing interoperability protocols and other who want to used should pay, but... Microsoft's protocols are not stat-of-art technology, it is an implementation of ideas that are commonly used in IT industry. NFS is in essence the same thing as CIFS but with different protocol convention.

Most of what's done in the IT industry on a daily basis, isn't "state of the art" or innovation. When I spend 3 months developing complex web application system for a client, I usually resort to well established best practices, ideas, algorithms, and methods.

This doesn't mean what I did is worthless and I should be forced to open the sources to anyone for free.

Re:Royalty

[ntufar]

Most of what's done in the IT industry on a daily basis, isn't "state of the art" or innovation. When I spend 3 months developing complex web application system for a client, I usually resort to well established best practices, ideas, algorithms, and methods.

This doesn't mean what I did is worthless and I should be forced to open the sources to anyone for free.

That was not the point I argued for. Microsoft is asked only to disclose the protocols necessary for third parties to communicate with Microsoft's products. In your analogy, you will be asked to disclose the protocol used to communicate with your application, which is HTTP, and format of the data in your application, which is HTML. Both of them are royalty-free and open standards. If the web application you are talking about is public, it appears that you are benefiting from the openness of HTTP and HTML without paying royalty to their inventor, Tim Berners-Lee. And in the same fashion it does not mean that what Tim Berners-Lee has developed is worthless!

Re:Royalty

[0racle]

But they are royalty free open standards because the creator(s) wanted them to be. MS on the other hand has chosen not to release these specs for free, and I don't believe that they should be forced to.

Re:Royalty

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. Instead, the EU should simply decide to insist that EU governments can only buy products based on open, patent and royalty unencumbered protocols and data formats, and encourage European businesses to adopt similar policies. If no existing vendor is willing or able to supply software under such terms, the EU should develop its own.

Re:Royalty

[jZnat]

Are you a convicted monopoly? Didn't think so. Monopolies have different rules to follow in order to maintain a free market.

Re:Royalty

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you would, if the post office was a private corporation, CHOSE ANOTHER POST OFFICE.

If you don't want to have interoperability issues, and they exist, don't choose windows. If enough people move away from windows due to compatibility - MS will be forced to release the info.

See how well the free market works when you give it an effin chance.

Royalties

[Anonymous Coward]

FTA:
Microsoft wants up to 5.95 per cent of companies' server revenues as a licence fee.

What happens with respect to Open Source projects that don't have any revenue; or non-profit groups.

The Commission's expert, who was suggested for the post by Microsoft, goes on to calculate that even an average royalty rate of 1 per cent would be unacceptable for licensees. Prof Barrett states that a 0 per cent royalty would be "better" and adds: "We can only conclude on this basis that the Microsoft-proposed royalties are prohibitively high [...] and should be reduced in line with this analysis."

Hopefully there would be a stipulation for Open Source projects to get a royalty free license.

Would be nice; not likely, but it would be very nice.

Re:Royalties

[fabs64]

Well one would hope that 5.95% of nothing is... :-)

Re:Royalties

[Anonymous Coward]

Well one would hope that 5.95% of nothing is... :-)

Well, that was my point when I posted this originally.

We are only reading a summary not the actual courts wording. There may be wording that may exclude Open Source project and or companies from using said documentation to produce software; hence my query about having a stipulation for non-profit and open source projects.

If there is a minimum amount of money; that would create issues for open sources projects:
1) Keeping track of licenses
2) Keeping track of payments (inbound and outbound, a/r, a/p)
3) No right to redistribute said software.

etc

Hope there is a provision for OSS.

Who would want to?

[KyoMamoru]

It all makes sense now!

Microsoft made Vista to release it's 'secrets' to its rivals! That way, once its all integrated everywhere, they can come out with Microsoft Winux! No annoying security messages, a great command line that works with the Gui, services that are tailored to the average user, and total customization!

Seriously, who in their right mind would want to integrate aspects of Windows? Sure it's a platform that millions are using, but with their continued mistakes, they won't have a foothold for much longer. Anyone who seriously is looking to engineer a better operating system should simply turn to the brilliant resources of the Open Source community.

Re:Who would want to?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, who in their right mind would want to integrate aspects of Windows? Sure it's a platform that millions are using, but with their continued mistakes, they won't have a foothold for much longer.

You have answered your own question. The people that integrate aspects of Windows are the people who need to inter operate with the Windows users. Those Windows users occupy 98% of the universe. Personally; I would like to use Thunderbird ( on Linux, Solaris, *BSD or Windows) at work but it doesn't play nice with all the (proprietary) toys that come with Exchange. What about being part of a Windows Domain natively? Let's extend this just a little farther: How about being able to choose your word processor or spreadsheet tool of choice and not having to be concerned about file formats.

Now, with open protocols and open standards; everyone can compete on a level playing field. Let the companies create true value to the products (IE: like management features, better interface, etc) instead of playing games by changing the protocol / formats and making forced upgrades for the users.

Re:Who would want to?

[Ernesto Alvarez]

Seriously, who in their right mind would want to integrate aspects of Windows?

Think like the SAMBA guys.
They want to interoperate with windows, not integrate aspects of it into other platforms. That capability is always a plus, at least it makes a transition out of windows smooth.

Re:Who would want to?

[StartCom]

Why Exchange? There are plenty of mail servers, which do exactly what you need; Sending and receiving mail...

Re:Who would want to?

[lanswitch]

For a lot of companies the calendar function in exchange /outlook is just as important as email. that's one of the main reasons why they stay with microsoft exchange.

Re:Who would want to?

[raddan]

Exactly. And for small and medium-sized businesses (200 employees), Exchange is very good at what it does. My problem with Exchange is that it requires an Active Directory, which means you now need to purchase another pile of machines to do DC work, fill your FSMO roles, run backups of said DCs, and so on. And, of course, if your userbase platform is not Windows, your Exchange client options are either a joke (Entourage on the Mac) or non-existent (Linux, BSD). It all adds up to a lot of money just to run an email/calendar server. Of course, if you already have 1) Windows clients, 2) an Active Directory, and 3) don't mind locking yourself in even further, then Exchange is a no-brainer. Once you're in... good luck getting out.

Re:Who would want to?

[StartCom]

Well...I do have calendaring in Thunderbird with http://www.mozilla.org/projects/calendar/releases/ lightning0.3.1.html My organization is 100% Linux based and 100% MS free, there is no need for Exchange (in my opinion). Additionally Exchange is bloated from what I saw last time...just for serving mail and some calendar sharing? In short, if there is a will there is a way! But I'm not sure if everybody whining about the MS lock-in really wants to do without MS products. It's certainly possible and everything else are excuses.

Re:Who would want to?

[Anonymous Coward]

...Those Windows users occupy 98% of the universe...

I think you just found the dark matter the astronomers have been looking for!

Re:Who would want to?

[Anonymous Coward]

Um... I see lots of references to programs that interface fine right now with Windows (Samba, WinAmp, etc.) Why do we need a court to have MS tell programmers what to do? Everyday I use dozens of non-MS programs that run great in Windows. Only one reason... to weaken MS in favor of EU software companies.
The whole monopoly argument is bs anyway. People choose to buy MS products. There have never been more competing products than right now and MS has made themselves especially vulnerable with a very questionable Vista product. If the products are crap, the market will sort it out and MS will lose out. The best thing you can do as an individual is buy or use something else. Using government and courts in this is just a demonstration of tyranny and anti-Americanism... alas, so very common on /.

Re:Who would want to?

[SL Baur]

And, of course, if your userbase platform is not Windows, your Exchange client options are either a joke (Entourage on the Mac) or non-existent (Linux, BSD). And, of course, if your userbase platform is not Windows, your Exchange client options are a joke - Entourage on the Mac or Scalix (Linux, BSD, etc.).

There. Fixed that for you.

ha

[wizardforce]

if this works as they say, it could mean that other countries would follow suit. very good news for open-source & mac

Re:ha

[blakmac]

if this works as they say, it could mean that other countries would follow suit. very good news for open-source & mac

That's great, but what about the US?

Re:ha

[maxwell demon]

If MS has to open up its APIs in the EU, and some OSS implements them, there's nothing to stop anyone in the US from using that OSS, is there?

Re:EU = still playing where it doesn't belong

[compro01]

How does not sharing MS File/Sharing specs harm competition again?

lack of interoperability, otherwise known as the tactic "vendor lock-in".

whether we like it or not, windows is currently the standard and if someone wants to compete (which lets that whole "free market" thing work), they need to be compatible with windows and with microsoft's formats (.doc, etc.)

Uhm, aren't they the criminals here?

[91degrees]

I want Microsoft's lawyers. I could get charged with being a bank robber, then make a deal where I agree to only rob a small bit from banks, and then I'd demand compensation for loss of earnings.

Re:Uhm, aren't they the criminals here?

[JamesTRexx]

If we're going into bank comparisons here, I see it more like the Microsoft bank charging their customers a huge fee to handle their money, and other banks having to pay a large percentage of All their money transfers (not just transfers to and from Microsoft) to interact with the Microsoft bank.
And no-one uses the other banks because their bosses and family are stuck on the Microsoft bank.

Re:Uhm, aren't they the criminals here?

[hachete]

MS is guilty as charged by a legally constituted court, the court's penalty is to hand over their IP. WTF has socialism got to do with it?

Re:Uhm, aren't they the criminals here?

[Comatose51]

I got one that's even better:

Get charged with selling drugs to little kids, then as a deal to avoid jail time and fines, you get punished by having to give free samples of the drug to those kids. Worked for Microsoft in the US...

Re:Uhm, aren't they the criminals here?

[jkrise]

I want Microsoft's lawyers. I could get charged with being a bank robber, then make a deal where I agree to only rob a small bit from banks, and then I'd demand compensation for loss of earnings.

It's worse than that... and it's not funny any more.

MS has been found guilty of abusing it's monopoly position in the Windows desktop market... and the EU has determined that it continues this abuse on other related product and service markets. Now, to introduce meaningful competition, the EU stipulates that MS has to reveal secretive protocols, which are the 'tools' for extending the monopoly into other markets.

5% server market revenues would be a very high barrier for competitors, according to the EU Inspectors approved by Microsoft themselves... they feel it should be close to 0%. They estimate that at 5%, it could take more than 7 years for meaningful competition. Coming to your robbing-the-bank analogy, it's like MS has a monopoly in bank-robbery the details and methods of which they will not divulge... except for 5% of their revenues. Note that he daylight robbery is still going on!

Re:Uhm, aren't they the criminals here?

[jabuzz]

No, it's not for free, it's part of the punishment for breaking the law. The protocols have a monetory value, and the EU has determined as it is entitled that rather than fine Microsoft the dollar value of the protocols, it is fining them the protocols themselves.

Remember it is "Interlectual Property", and when you break the law the goverment is entitled to confiscate what parts of your property it sees as reasonable.

Re:Uhm, aren't they the criminals here?

[fbjon]

There simply isn't an excuse for this blatant attempted robbery in the name of socialism;

You fail. This is capitalism at work, not socialism. Microsoft is being forced to not abuse its position of monopoly, in order to promote a free market. Better interoperability would foster competition, and competition is what we all want.

Re:Uhm, aren't they the criminals here?

[gnasher719]

'' The EU is basically demanding MS to hand over their IP for free. ''

Actually, they are not. What MS is supposed to hand over for free is in no way intellectual property.

Lets say for some reason a product needs to transmit two numbers A and B. They could be transmitted in the order A, B or B, A. They could be transmitted as decimal numbers in text format, or binary. If binary, they could be transmitted as 8, 16, 24 or 32 bits in various byte orderings. All these variations are completely arbitrary and cannot be considered to have any intellectual value. However, for compatibility a competitor needs to know which of these arbitrary variations a product uses.

This information could at most be considered a trade secret. In this case, however, keeping that secret a secret would be illegal, therefore it is not a trade secret.

There is no reason at all why Microsoft should get any compensation for this information.

Re:Uhm, aren't they the criminals here?

[dekropisvol]

attempted robbery in the name of socialism

Mwahahahaha, robbery in the name of capitalism is good, no way. Any robbery is wrong, left or right. What Microsoft does is a complete shutdown of IP development, robbing the whole IT, nothing more.

Re:Uhm, aren't they the criminals here?

[rucs_hack]

There is no reason at all why Microsoft should get any compensation for this information.

Well, no reason they should need the money. A smaller company being made to release protocols might be in a decent position to request payment, if they have a need to recoup significant investment. I don't think it's the act of payment that's the issue, its that microsoft do not need to charge to make their money back, they just want to so they can limit access.

I personally think they are effectively unbeatable in court. They have so much money that they can keep this crap going for years, and they know it. I say halt this charade and force the US to break up Microsoft, get to the root of the problem.

Re:Uhm, aren't they the criminals here?

[CastrTroy]

In this case, it's not like the monopoly was handed to them by the state, or that the state even helped them get to a position of monopoly. Looking at other famous monopolies like telephone or electrical companies, the state usually sets up a situation where there is a monopoly, because its really stupid to have multiple power lines from different companies running all over the place. The state usually gives subsidies to the power/telephone companies to expand their networks to ensure that everyone is being served well. The state then makes laws so that other companies can use those same lines, because the state put the company into a monopoly. However, with MS, they actually achieved that status on their own, by making a product, and marketing it such that it eventually became the standard in it's own right. Just because MS came up with a good cookie recipe, doesn't mean they should have to give the cookie recipe out to everyone else so they can compete freely. I'm kind of playing devil's advocate here, and think that MS should really open up their protocols. However, this is not just because they are a monopolist, but because I believe it better serves their customers. By allowing the customers to make applications that interface with their own systems, they give their applications more value, and it makes their systems easier to use. Right now, you have MS shops, and Linux/Unix shops. There are very few places that deal with mixed environments because of the problems in getting the systems to talk to eachother. If MS opened up their protocols, I'm sure they'd lose a few sales on one end, but they'd also gain a few sales on the other end. Having an open protocol also gives you a spec to follow, to make your software much more robust, instead of having a situation like with MS Word (.doc) where the format is whatever the program happens to spit out.

Re:Uhm, aren't they the criminals here?

[Sczi]

I say halt this charade and force the US to break up Microsoft, get to the root of the problem.

Amen.. we should have stuck while the iron was hot many years ago, when the plan was to make Office its own company. We would probably have a fully compatible Mac and *nix version by now. This whole shtick of using dominance in one market to bully people around in other markets is getting really f'n old.

Re:Uhm, aren't they the criminals here?

[UnknowingFool]

No, every time this comes up, we have to go through the same explanation again. The EU does not want MS to disclose their source code; they want them to disclose their protocols. For example, the Samba team has done a great job of reverse engineering the protocols for CIFS but if they were actually given the protocols, they could implement Active Directory on Linux in a heartbeat. As a delay tactic, MS said that they should be able to charge for the protocols like a license. The EU thought that would be fair; however, the prices and the conditions MS set in the proposed license would ensure that no one could/would use the license.

Re:Uhm, aren't they the criminals here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, no reason they should need the money. A smaller company being made to release protocols might be in a decent position to request payment, if they have a need to recoup significant investment.

No, a smaller company would be happy to give details about the protocol, so it's software can work together with other types of software that other companies make. This compatibility would be an advantage for their product.

But since Microsoft makes all sorts of software, they can promote their own software by saying it's the only one that works with their software. That's an unfair advantage due to their monopoly.

Example: If I make a video encoder, and sell video streaming software, I'd have to release all details, and hope enough players will be compatible. Otherwise, nobody will be interested.
In the same case, Microsoft will just keep it secret, and say "windows media player is compatible, so if you buy our steaming software, you can stream to 95% of the market". That way they block out any competing client software, they stop anyone from making a competing streaming server, and they force windows XP/Vista/whatever's monopoly (since I can't run windows media player on linux).

Re:Uhm, aren't they the criminals here?

[geekoid]

True, but a republican controlled government isn't going to enact anything that would make a corporation play fair.

Re:Uhm, aren't they the criminals here?

[horza]

The EU could also decide that through illegally abusing its monopoly Microsoft has already made enough money at the expense of the EU to cover a license to use file formats / protocols required for interoperability. It's been a terrible drain on the economy and productivity over the years.

Phillip.

Re:Uhm, aren't they the criminals here?

[init100]

Didn't you know that everything that doesn't benefit Microsoft is socialism or communism? Linux doesn't benefit Microsoft, so it is communism.

Re:Uhm, aren't they the criminals here?

[Elladan]

It's nice to know that you hold "intellectual property" with a higher standard of protection than actual real property.

So, if you steal from Sue, the court can order you to hand Sue the keys to your car in compensation. Your car is actual property.

But... in-tel-lec-tu-al property?! OMG Ponies No! That must be protected by knights flying on gilded dragons from ever being at risk, no matter what!

Considering the shit Microsoft has pulled in the past, they're lucky the EU doesn't just seize Windows in compensation, and leave the company trying to sell Clippy licenses.

Re:Uhm, aren't they the criminals here?

[jbo5112]

Isn't Linux 90%+ socialistic? Most of the software is released for free (free beer), only generating donations, and done for fun and the benefit of all. I was under the impression that the distributions that cost a fee had a small market share.

And apparently, socialism can work. A few years ago (after the release of AMD64 Linux and before the release of XP x64), I remember seeing $40,000+ workstations running mostly open-source (free speech and free beer) software for Hollywood level video editing/creation (CinePaint and Cinerella, along with Maya, which is commercial). The market was blown open because the relatively cheap (compared to say SGI or SUN) AMD64 hardware platform usually runs 10-20% faster with 64-bit code, which Microsoft couldn't (or wouldn't) get to market. Intel's Netburst was a failure on 64-bit, and couldn't compete at 32-bit. Apple couldn't compete either. The G5 might have an edge on the Opteron per core (benchmarks here and here), but you can't stick 4 or 8 physical G5 cpu's in a machine like you can with Opteron.

Re:Uhm, aren't they the criminals here?

[jbo5112]

Imagine it more like someone is power hungry and a genius at marketing produce, livestock, dairy, and anything else a farm would produce. Eventually they own 90% of the farms worldwide and have snatched up all everything that could be used as new farmland, but they SUCK at farming. Food prices go through the roof with 25% inflation, and the quality goes down the tubes. They even set up a distribution system that works well for them, but does nothing but exasperates everyone and pisses them off. The worst is that many diseases and mal nutrition have become rampant because this BAD farm monopoly, and many people have died because of it.

Wouldn't it be the job of a good government to fix this situation? Microsoft has never innovated. They happened to start off with a lucky deal, and do an astounding job marketing their crappy software. I suppose many MS Office apps have had their short-lived time of awesome, but they're hardly revolutionary and have had a much longer life of just plain SUCCCKKKXXXXSSS. Printing 75 copies of one page in Excel 2003 takes 20-25 minutes on a 100 page per minute printer!! I can't believe Windows 95 (in my experience, less stable than ME) got named a top tech invention either! After 3 or 4 months (most of which I was using NT4), I was lucky to get enough uptime to run my DVD player, which was the only reason I had it and would miraculously keep things running). Watching my roommates 486 DX2-66 w/8MB RAM run circles around my Pentium II-300 w/ 128MB RAM, a 9GB Cheetah and workstation-caliber graphics card was truly appalling. Especially when his OS and browser were quite firm on the 32MB minimum RAM!!!

A more fair comparison (the world hasn't died out from using Windows 95) would be that if a bunch of companies developed incompatible hover cars and special roads they have to work with. Microsoft does a good job marketing something sub-par, that while has some bright spots, is never very good on the whole. They, on their own, manage to get their proprietary roads everywhere, through their own money and their customers', which sometimes includes some large government agencies that blindly go with the "Industry Leader," but it's never anything worse than taking advantage of people caught in tough spots. Now, any competition is just a niche market, because they can't drive anywhere because they can't quite figure out Microsoft's BROKEN roads well enough.

Although, sometimes the competition does better at it than MS themselves, every few years, Microsoft changes the roads to something different and we're back at square one of building something compatible. I would say they upgrade the roads, but they're still broken and sometimes worse than before, and we're all stuck buying new cars!! Once a competitor invents a compatible car, they can start building better roads, which will only work with their cars at first, but others can read all about how these work and even make improvements. But, that's assuming they aren't squished by mighty MS. Eventually, a group of companies will negotiate a great set of standards for everybody, but we need to get out of monopoly mode before the company buys the government and turns it into 1984. The quickest way is by forcing Microsoft to release their standards.

Re:Uhm, aren't they the criminals here?

[init100]

Isn't Linux 90%+ socialistic?

There is hardly any consensus on the political ideology of Linux or open source. Actually, there are good indicators that it is actually apolitical, as followers of almost every ideology manages to fit it into their own ideology. Conservatives argue that F/OSS is conservative, liberals argue that it is liberal, socialists argue that it is socialist, etc.

Re:Uhm, aren't they the criminals here?

[91degrees]

I'm not usually a fan of the analogy fixing that goes on here, but that's a pretty good comparison.

Re:EU = still playing where it doesn't belong

[FlyingGuy]

Can you really be that naive?

I will give you one simple example ( even though I think you are a troll ) and let you take it from there.

MAPI ( the Mail API ) - This was a specified API to allow different programs to interact with e-mail. It was supposed to allow any program to send whatever their work prodcut was, along as an attachement to an e-mail, and to generaly interact with any e-mail system installed on the computer.

When MAPI was 1st published it had a well defined set of interfaces and API calls that were documented and reliable. This was all well and good until well the competition started writing better e-mail systems. These were all fully MAPI complient and worked very well.

As we all know by now, MicroSoft cannot handle competition. So what did Microsoft do? What they always do, they changed the API and then didn't tell anyone. So now all kinds of MAPI complient applications started breaking, well except theirs of course, since they had all the documentation and the rest of the word didn't.

This is the basic Microsoft pattern. If someone comes up with something better then they have and it relies on an API controlled by them, they simply change it and then dont tell anyone they did so, thus stopping the competitions product from looking so good or even working at all

That, by defintion, is anti-competative behaviour.

HRH William Gates III

[BillGatesLoveChild]

> EU Rejects Microsoft Royalty Proposal

Now this time Bill Gates really has gone too far: King Gates III! The Brits would never buy it! On the other hand we could see increased coverage of Microsoft in the British Tabloid Press and I'd like to see Steve Balmer try to throw a throne.

Re:HRH William Gates III

[eleuthero]

You never know but what they might--he is Sir William Gates III already, and with all the mess the current royal family gets into from time to time...

Why US did not want to supervise this market?

[edis]

Respect to EU for coming up with deserved enforcing of market quality. Silly, how weak or non-existant were efforts of US institutions to do something along that. Netscape or Real vs MS cases were irrelevant by the time they even started, not to say they didn't solve much for the industry and market as such. US once had thriving software and computing sector. While there is some action in HW, persuasive "partnering" of MS with makers of most consumer products led to minimal inventiveness in SW. While Vista is mostly surprising by how much of it can be so similar to Mac OS/X, it was shocking to see Office 2007 - what, innovation?!

Go, Europe!

Re:Why US did not want to supervise this market?

[pak9rabid]

> Respect to EU for coming up with deserved enforcing of market quality. Silly, how weak or non-existant were efforts of US institutions to do something along that. What else would you expect from U$A...

Re:Why US did not want to supervise this market?

[Anonymous Coward]

How much Money has been funded by Micro$oft to varying political candidates?

If our Government wasn't influenced by Big companies like M$, wouldn't the SCO case have been resolved a long time ago?

Why have no candidates (In the US Presidential Race) came out in support of Open Source Software for Government and Education, Open Document Format, Fair Copyright and Patent reform?

It's true!

[PoopDaddy]

I saw it on Slashdot from this guy samzenpus who said this guy pallmall1 saw on MSNBC that the Financial Times reported it. So it's gotta be true.

Re:It's true!

[blakmac]

I saw it on Slashdot from this guy samzenpus who said this guy pallmall1 saw on MSNBC that the Financial Times reported it. So it's gotta be true.

read: "I saw it on Slashdot...So it's gotta be true."

Re:It's true!

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is a link to the original Financial Times article.

Re:It's true!

[shmelly]

Hey, I'm just glad to see people citing their sources.

(Hmmm, I wonder if WetBlanketGuy is taken yet)

Re:EU = still playing where it doesn't belong

[Opportunist]

If said company is holding a monopoly, then yes.

Monopolies are, by their very definition, the bane of free market. Should you be able to hold a monopoly over a certain area of the market, the free market starts to crumble because it cannot employ its power.

In a truely free market someone could come along with a new and better idea and that new/better idea would sell better because the product is better. That's the theory behind it all. Competition amongst producers, with the consumer being the decider which product is best, giving the producers of "good" products their money, so they thrive while the ones with the "bad" products perish.

This does not work in the presence of a monopoly. MS can produce the worst software and they would still be the top sellers. Simply because companies have invested a large amount of money into their line of products.

If MS can hold its specs under cover, companies would be forced to keep buying from MS, even if their software is inferior, because competing software would not be compatible. Which, in turn, contradicts what free market dictates as the doctrine of the best product being the best selling one.

DOS 2

[AliasMarlowe]

Remember one technically unnecessary but business-mandated criterion in developing MS-DOS 2:
"DOS isn't done 'till Lotus won't run"
Microsoft does not merely control its APIs, it has a history of abusing that control for anticompetitive purposes.

Re:DOS 2

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have any source that has even a tiniest shred of authority? In the meantime, here's a link to start you off on your search: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=dos+ain't+don e+till+lotus+won't+run&btnG=Google+Search

Re:DOS 2

[beuges]

Why on earth is this absolute rubbish modded insightful, when it is complete and utter bullshit? If you're so sure of the accuracy of your post, please back it up with some proof. I have some proof that shows that your post is a load of crap:

Please read this link: http://www.proudlyserving.com/archives/2005/08/dos _aint_done_t.html

Lotus 1-2-3 was one of the main reasons people were buying MS-DOS based computers. Lotus was _the_ killer app for the PC back in the day. A more accurate quote would rather be: 'DOS aint done until Lotus 1-2-3 runs 100%'. Microsoft developers worked closely with Lotus developers to get incompatibilities and bugs fixed.

Hopefully the mods will read the link as well, so that bullshit like this doesnt get modded up in future.

mod this guy up please

[compro01]

this guy just took my entire point and made it better.

thank you.

Interoperability

[Anonymous Coward]

And why should MS allow others to interoperate with their email or other protocols?

Before MS, IBM ruled the computing world, with numerous other incompatible operating systems such as DEC/TOPS, DEC/VAX, Univac OS/1100, HP RTOS, etc thrown into the mix.

None of these OS's were interoperable, nor could mail even be easily exchanged between them. All were proprietary.

Yet now everyone is demanding that MS open up, sans compensation. Just because MS is very successful? IBM ruled both the hardware and software market back then, in a way that MS today doesn't even come close. Yet no one forced them to open up their protocols (although the US government did try, and lost).

Yet an upstart MS was able to dethrone IBM from both the hardware and software crowns. The current European situation seems instigated by companies unable to aggressively compete. Government regulation is hardly ever the solution to innovation.

Re:Interoperability

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet now everyone is demanding that MS open up, sans compensation. Just because MS is very successful?

Well, because they're a monopoly and they've been abuisng that position.

IBM ruled both the hardware and software market back then, in a way that MS today doesn't even come close. Yet no one forced them to open up their protocols (although the US government did try, and lost).

And if the US government won, then something similar would have happened. Microsoft lost for whatever different legal reasons.

Yet an upstart MS was able to dethrone IBM from both the hardware and software crowns.

No they didn't. IBM made mainframes. Microsoft made desktop operating systems. Completely different market. The current European situation seems instigated by companies unable to aggressively compete. Government regulation is hardly ever the solution to innovation.

That is the whole point! There's no way they can aggressively compete because Microsoft abuse their monopoly!

Re:Interoperability

[Anonymous Coward]

"Yet an upstart MS was able to dethrone IBM from both the hardware and software crowns."

"No they didn't. IBM made mainframes."

A viable OS running on microprocessor hardware killed the dominance of the mainframe in the computing world. Or hadn't you noticed?

Your other arguments are equally specious. IBM had a monopoly, but they were readily dethroned by an upstart with disruptive technology.

"Microsoft lost for whatever different legal reasons."

Define "lost". They were not broken up, like AT&T. They were not subject to significant fines. They did not have to hand over trade secrets. How is this "losing"?

Re:Interoperability

[GerardM]

Hoi,
You may have noticed that both the US government and the European Union have found Microsoft to be a monopolist. Government regulation is a solution to monopolism.

Thanks,
        GerardM

Re:Interoperability

[Somewhat Delirious]

I shouldn't have to explain this to someone of reasonable intelligence but this is not about other companies being unable to build a competing OS but about MS using it's monopolist position to keep others from building software for windows that competes with MS products. So now please explain to me how you can compete with MS if you don't have the neccesary information to make your products run efficiently on their OS. By guessing? I'm sorry but you don't seem to understand the meaning of the word monopoly.

Re:Interoperability

[Anonymous Coward]

And why should MS allow others to interoperate with their email or other protocols?

Quite right, nobody should be allowed to exchange email with Microsoft. In fact, if we all just went to work for Microsoft, this whole problem would just go away.

Re:Interoperability

[Anne Thwacks]

No quite - all of these organisations did indeed have incompatible protocols - because they invented them cuncurrently, and prior to that there there had been no protocols. However, they released sufficient information for interchange products to be developed.

Microsoft OTOH developed incompatible protocols after there were perfectly good ones in use, and then forced them onto the world using illegal tactics.

Most people can see a difference here

Re:Interoperability

[Anonymous Coward]

You do it the same way copy protection gets cracked, encryption is broken, and security vulnerabilities are found: you bust your ass off and figure it out yourself using whatever means necessary. "Guessing" is not required, but methodical investigation and experimentation is.

Re:Interoperability

[Somewhat Delirious]

Sure...and as soon as you find out MS makes a small change and you start over again? May I suggest you get real? Why is it that some people just fail to be able grasp the concept of monopolism and that it is NOT I repeat NOT compatible with free market thinking.

Re:Interoperability

[MichaelSmith]

However, they released sufficient information for interchange products to be developed.

I have worked with DEC gear for 20 years and I can think of many examples of closed interfaces which they used to keep competitors from interfacing with their systems and taking their markets.

Their approach to third party alpha motherboards was very close to that of apple to clone makers.

They used the same old tactic, but that doesn't make what Microsoft are doing right. The difference now is that we have more, better, open standards. The expectations are higher now because IT is more pervasive.

Re:Interoperability

[Explodicle]

Government regulation is hardly ever the solution to innovation.

Except for government-enforced monopolies. It's somehow different with them, right?

Re:Interoperability

[Endo13]

Before MS, IBM ruled the computing world, with numerous other incompatible operating systems such as DEC/TOPS, DEC/VAX, Univac OS/1100, HP RTOS, etc thrown into the mix. And if IBM had been as good as MS at business tactics and were still in that position today, they would be facing exactly the same consequences MS is.

There's a reason people keep using "bad car" analogies. It's because computers these days are on a global scale as necessary and ubiquitous as cars are in the US. This was not the case in IBM's heyday, even in the commercial or industrial arena.

To use yet one more "bad car" analogy, it's as if [insert car manufacturer here] manufactured not only automobiles, but also the roads those autos worked on, and no other auto could function on their roads. Of course it just so happens that those roads are the ones needed to get to 95% of all the most popular destinations, and in particular the destinations involving tourism and vacation sites as well as the majority of business locations. Sure, you could use an auto and roads from a different manufacturer - you just won't be able to get to where you want to go.

Re:Interoperability

[ScriptedReplay]

Microsoft OTOH developed incompatible protocols after there were perfectly good ones in use, and then forced them onto the world using illegal tactics.

According to the expert named by MS for this investigation, the documentation for which they demand royalties has hardly any innovation - typical MS embrace & extend of existing, open protocols. This is the reason for EU's rejection of proposed royalties. So I wouldn't put too much emphasis on MS' "developing" protocols. I agree with the second half of your sentence though.

Re:Interoperability

[init100]

IBM had a monopoly, but they were readily dethroned by an upstart with disruptive technology.

I'd say IBM dethroned themselves. DOS was never a disruptive technology, but the PC was. IBM left the specs open, which let other hardware companies make compatible systems.

Re:Interoperability

[init100]

Why is it that some people just fail to be able grasp the concept of monopolism and that it is NOT I repeat NOT compatible with free market thinking.

Because they have an interest in having Microsoft retain their current position? They could be stockholders, employees, fanboys, etc. Thus they try to redefine common concepts like monopoly, free market and socialism to fit their own and Microsoft's agenda.

Re:Interoperability

[SCHecklerX]

educate thyself

Re:Interoperability

[shutdown -p now]

And why should MS allow others to interoperate with their email or other protocols?

Because it is for the public good, which is seemingly considered more important in EU than it is in US.

Re:EU = still playing where it doesn't belong

[Anonymous Coward]

MS doesn't owe me, you nor anyone else nothing.

Dont you think that a company, in some way, owes something to its paying customers? Dont you think they owe paying customers fixes for bugs? ...could make more examples...

You are simply a market anarchist, who believes in the right of the strong. Why do you think we have a free market and not a planned economy?

1. To allow companies to make maximum profit
2. For the benefit of people and the development of society

Would (1) make any sense in a democratic civilised society?

Re:EU = still playing where it doesn't belong

[joe_adk]

Monopolies are, by their very definition, the bane of free market.

Monopoly defined

See Hotelling's Law and US vs. Syufy

While monopolies TEND to be bad they aren't evil in and of themselves. Monopolies are like guns: they only do damage if someone uses them to do damage.

I post as if you care.

Re:EU = still playing where it doesn't belong

[Anonymous Coward]

"Said companies didn't enter in a contract with MS to guaranty 100% compatibility for their MAPI enabled apps. "

Cool, you accept his point that they broke MAPI and didn't document it. Now go look up which law they broke when they did that. We can wait.

Re:EU = still playing where it doesn't belong

[SanityInAnarchy]

Said companies didn't enter in a contract with MS to guaranty 100% compatibility for their MAPI enabled apps.

Which they should not have to, as MAPI is (supposedly) an open standard.

MS' doing what they can to keep backwards compability. That's the only guaranty MS can give.

It's spelled "guarantee". And that would be great, if they were trying to do that -- instead of deliberately trying to break the competition in subtle ways.

They have done this before. Take msn.com, which had a ridiculous typo in its stylesheet -- in a version of the stylesheet only shown to Opera users.

Coincidence? Maybe, but consider that this never, EVER happens the other way around -- that is, msn.com never has typos that break stuff in Internet Explorer, and their own API changes never break a Microsoft product.

Even if MS have access to a few undocumented MAPI calls, it's still their right to have those undocumented.

No, it is not. It is blatantly anticompetitive behavior. Using their complete dominance in the Operating System business to support their Email Client business -- or even their Office Suite business -- is not just unfair, it's actually illegal.

MS doesn't owe me, you nor anyone else nothing.

You don't have a clue about antitrust laws, then.

Maybe it's different in Britain, but here, this kind of shit is considered illegal and wrong -- except, I suppose, for those who have contributed a large amount of money to political campaigns. (Notice how the antitrust suit against MS was dropped as soon as Bush got elected -- and notice how much MS (and MS executives) contributed to the Bush 2000 campaign.)

IP == "free market?!" WTF?!??!

[mrchaotica]

Now, let me get this straight - simply taking a companies' intellectual property with next-to-no compensation is being argued on "free market" grounds? Mind-boggling.

Mind-boggling? No, what's really mind-boggling is that we're in such a Bizarro would that people somehow think it isn't "free market!"

Here's a newsflash: so-called "intellectual property" is a government-granted monopoly. It is an artificial construct of law. It is the opposite of a "free market!"

In a truly free market, so-called "intellectual property" would not exist. Everyone would be free to make whatever widgets they wanted, without having to worry about whether some whiny ass claimed to think of the idea first. That's a "free market!"

Re:IP == "free market?!" WTF?!??!

[gregorio]

In a truly free market, so-called "intellectual property" would not exist. Everyone would be free to make whatever widgets they wanted, without having to worry about whether some whiny ass claimed to think of the idea first. That's a "free market!"

Bullshit. The economical definition of free market has nothing to do with anarchy / lack of laws. It's not about a market free of rules, but free of government intervention. A free market lacks the government as a market player, acting only as a neutral "referee".

Re:IP == "free market?!" WTF?!??!

[mrchaotica]

Enforcing artificial monopolies is intervention.

Re:IP == "free market?!" WTF?!??!

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a newsflash: so-called "intellectual property" is a government-granted monopoly. It is an artificial construct of law. It is the opposite of a "free market!"

For 'intellectual property' you could also substitute 'corporations', for that matter

Re:IP == "free market?!" WTF?!??!

[mrchaotica]

For 'intellectual property' you could also substitute 'corporations', for that matter

No argument here.

Re:IP == "free market?!" WTF?!??!

[drsquare]

How is intellectual property any more artificial than normal property? I could say that in a truly free market, everyone would be free to take and use whatever they wanted, without having to worry about whether some whiny ass had it before.

Re:IP == "free market?!" WTF?!??!

[mrchaotica]

The difference is that with physical property, said "whiny ass" can physically prevent the taking.

Re:IP == "free market?!" WTF?!??!

[drsquare]

You're saying that if you have the physical power to take someone's property you should be able to?

How dare the EU!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

When I'm arrested for breaking the law, I don't get to continue robbing while out (on 0 bail) and then when the court finds against me, I can't decide what I should do to rectify it. Nor do I get to get paid for making reparations!

Heinous!

Re:EU = still playing where it doesn't belong

[dprovine]

The only reason Microsoft has the position they do is that the governments of various countries have made it illegal for you to access information in certain ways. If it wasn't for government interference in the free actions of individuals, there would be no copyright laws at all. The government interferes with people's activities in this case because they contend an overall social good results.

Now, the governments have concluded that interfering with Microsoft will produce an overall social good. For Microsoft defenders to speak as if government interference is always a bad thing is ridiculous: they are complaining about the very thing that gives Microsoft any position at all.

Re:EU = still playing where it doesn't belong

[jabuzz]

Well the EU is arguing it as a fine for breaking the law, that is designed to rectify the problems in the market that the illegal behaviour of Microsoft has caused. Other people can argue it anyway they want.

I don't think this will help...

[davester666]

So MS releases the specs for various protocols they happen to be using right now. I can easily see MS changing these protocols as part of a service pack to XP/Vista and suddenly it's two more years for the revised specs to be made available. But this would just be IMHO based on how they've 'updated' the Windows file sharing protocol over the years and how nicely they play with public standards [namely the standard with a twist].

Re:I don't think this will help...

[chribo]

When you read the original EU commission document you'll see that they have choosen a wording which is release independent.

-- chribo

What about the EU fines ?

[Alain Williams]

It is evident that the money is not the real issue for M$ here. If it was they would have complied with the EU order a long time ago rather than pay 2 million Euros per day. The real issue is preventing the competition from competing fairly - in particular Open Source.

Note that M$ gets the benefits of using other protocols for free, eg: the Open System protocols (described in POSIX); the Internet protocols (described in RFCs); Open Source implemented stuff (just read the code)[**].

It could get quite interesting if the Antigua spat with the USA over gambling gets worse [[The WTO order has been ignored by the USA]]. The result will be that Antigua will be allowed to take retaliation - which means ignoring protection on USA goods. If Antigua was to get a copy of the M$ protocols specification it could release it free to use by everyone - legally.

[**] Yes it is quite legal for M$ to read Open Source code, deduce the protocols and write closed source software - just as long as they don't copy the code. This is as it should be.

Re:What about the EU fines ?

[dkf]

Yes it is quite legal for M$ to read Open Source code, deduce the protocols and write closed source software - just as long as they don't copy the code.

Actually, the last part depends on the license. Anyone (MS included) can use BSD-licensed code in their closed source software. (They can also try to just sell plain builds of it too, of course, though it's a bit tricky when someone else can undercut them for nothing. It's easier to build a business when you're adding some value.) By comparison, the GPL prohibits this sort of thing, which some people like and some people don't. YMMV.

Re:What about the EU fines ?

[MyNameIsFred]

...Antigua will be allowed to take retaliation - which means ignoring protection on USA goods...

While it is true that they would be allowed to retaliate, my understanding is that the retaliation cannot be arbitrary. That is, they can raise duties on selected US goods, to make them uncompetitive with goods from other countries. It does not give them carte blance to release trade secrets.

...WTO order has been ignored by the USA...

I do not believe ignore is the proper word for describing the situation. Ignore implies the US government did nothing. However, I understand the events were - The WTO said US law was in violation. Congress changed the law with the intent of bringing it into compliance. WTO said not good enough.

Re:What about the EU fines ?

[Alain Williams]

Actually, the last part depends on the license.

No it does not. The free licenses allow you to inspect the code, understand how it works and use that knowledge elsewhere -- including for building closed source software. There is a big difference between reading the code and copying it.

Re:What about the EU fines ?

[AusIV]

If Antigua was to get a copy of the M$ protocols specification it could release it free to use by everyone - legally.

Legally as far as the WTO is concerned. If the US is ignoring the WTO anyway, I don't see what makes you think MS couldn't take vendors using these specifications to court in the US.

You missunderstand.

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft is not being asked to give over anything remotely considered intellectual property by the EU.

They are being asked to document their API's so that they may not use their illegal monopoly to prevent interoperability from competitors and therefore maintain their monopoly.

They can do this without giving anything of value in the legal sense and certainly can achieve this without ever showing a single line of source code, although worked examples certainly would help with understanding.

They are an illegal company performing illegal acts and as such punitive controls must be enforced to ensure a fair playing field, period.

Re:You missunderstand.

[Virtual_Raider]

Well that makes more sense. I stand corrected =)

Re:You missunderstand.

[Jesus_666]

They're just stalling because they need to write another 4000 pages saying "in order to implement this feature, do exactly as Windows XP does".

Re:You missunderstand.

[hey!]

The EU doesn't recognize the validity of "trade secrets"?

What would be interesting to know is the actual legal basis of the decision. MS, for one reason or another, is being deprived of a form of "intellectual property", albeit the weakest form there is. The question is are they being forced to do this in order to foster competition, or are they being forced do this as punishment for their anticompetitive practices?

Frankly, I agree with the zero royalty idea. Once the secret has been licensed enough times, it is not very secret anymore.

Re:You missunderstand.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a single WIPO country considers "trade secrets" a form of IP. Not one. No, not even the United States of America. That's why these things are called "secrets": otherwise they would be "patents" or "copyrights".

What would be interesting to know is the actual legal basis of the decision.

All of the court papers have been published and are publicly accessible. Knock yourself out.

The question is are they being forced to do this in order to foster competition, or are they being forced do this as punishment for their anticompetitive practices?

Both, and they amount to the same thing at any rate.

Re:You missunderstand.

[hey!]

But the US does protect trade secrets, both in common law, in uniform state commercial law, and in federal statutory law.

Once trade secrets are revealed, then they are no longer secrets, but a company is allowed to protect its confidential information, and can exact damages for improper disclosure.

In the UK, I understand that trade secrets are treated somewhat differently from property rights, but they are still protected; the range of the remedies would be somewhat different.

Re:You missunderstand.

[BlackSnake112]

What API's are we talking about here?

Exchange? file server? application server?

Application server: Talk to the people that made the application, not all the apps installed on the server are from ms. Not all application servers are ms based. The application writer/provider decides what platforms they are supporting.

File server: Shouldn't be an issue now and hasn't been for some time. We have had linux, *nix (sun, and something else I forget), and ms servers all letting ms, apple, and linux clients read and right to them for a few years now. (We didn't have the ms file server until a few years ago.) The biggest problem is people forgetting their password. Which is not a ms, apple, or problem though. The file servers store different things. The video files are on the apple server, and the regular doc files are on the ms and *nix ones. Depending on the user role, one may have access to all of them or just a few.

Exchange server: Don't get exchange. There are other choices. If the business decides to go with one all in one system, that is a decision for that company to make. People in that company use that software.
Email: there are a lot of email server choices.
Address book/contacts: again lots of choices that work with email and some that are stand alone.

The biggest thing about exchange I hear is calendar. If you have to share your calendar with the world, then use something everyone in the world can use. Personally I hate the exchange calendar. If you need to have a public calendar so everyone can see where/when you are all the time, then get a stand alone public calendar.

The more one software title does the more a pain it becomes. Software should do one thing well and consistently. You have 5 different programs to do 5 different things, fine. Email and scheduling (calendar) are two different things. They should be two different pieces of software.

Re:You missunderstand.

[mabhatter654]

A trade secret is a form of employee trust, not IP. Once the cat is out of the bag, it's fair game. Most laws deal with attempts to GET the cat out... punishment for companies telling other companies secrets, employees selling private info to other companies, that kind of thing. If you just figure it out, or the data is left open, there's nothing to be done about it.

Example... Samba reverse engineers the SMB protocol... they have lots of documents, but they figured it out without reverse engineering any actual windows copyrighted programs... so it's legal. Look at the recent HD DVD keys being "liberated", again, if an employee sold that they would go to jail, but if you simply find it out thru bad encryption or some other method on hardware you own it's fair game. That's also why the US passed the DMCA. Because the keys are only "secret" they added a law that makes breaking a "secret" lock punishable when it wouldn't normally be.

Frankly at this point the EU needs to lock up some Microsoft managers for Contempt until the documentation is approved... it will be fun to see MS sell their own out instead of comply with the law!!

Re:You missunderstand.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, we're talking things like SMB and KERBEROS. Things that were standards, are standards, but are used by Microsoft in funky proprietary ways that they keep changing and not documenting. The EU is just saying "publish your bloody changes so other people can talk to your servers".

Re:EU = still playing where it doesn't belong

[fbjon]

Monopolies are like guns: they only do damage if someone uses them to do damage.

Exactly. Now let's consider the keywords: "monopoly", "use", "damage". Does this remind you of any company in particular?

Re:EU = still playing where it doesn't belong

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is this intellectual property you think Microsoft are being asked to hand over?

Re:EU sucks.

[Bert64]

Uninstall it how?
Last time i tried to uninstall the half-baked bundled apps, all it did was remove the icon and leave the apps on the system.

Re:EU = still playing where it doesn't belong

[Anonymous Coward]

"The government interferes with people's activities in this case because they contend an overall social good results."

Of course, that's very much a "European" view of the role of law--and I don't mean "European" in the sense of "of the EU" here. Here law is a "directing" activity--something Napoleonic. And let's hope that a court knows what is "overall social good results".

The Anglo-American view, which has its roots in the English Common Law is different. In this view law is fundamentally about conflict resolution. The striking success of this model of law--you find wealthy, flourishing, relatively free, and generally law-abiding societies--everywhere where people have been influenced by this model ought to recommend this view to people more often.

Actually, I suppose this ruling may have originally arisen out of conflict--in other words, in response to irresolvable disagreements between Microsoft and other vendors. I don't know how it arose. Did some other vendors take Microsoft to Court? If so, a judgment in favour of the other vendors seems a reasonable resolution to the conflict and in accordance with the requirements of justice. AFAICT, Microsoft was acting unjustly in damaging their business by deliberately sabotaging interoperability.

Re:EU = still playing where it doesn't belong

[Anonymous Coward]

It is established that they have a de facto monopoly on the operating systems and office package markets. Their mail client has been included on every OS they have released since windows 95. Now if they intentionally break the protocol with which the mail client (Outlook, Outlook Express and whatever it's called in Vista) interoperates with a mail server in order to leverage the market penetration of your own product (Exchange) then you have broken the law.

Remember, it's not illegal to have a monopoly but it is illegal to leverage said monopoly in other markets.

And don't give the whiny speech about how EU only does this to US companies, Microsoft or your granny. EU takes a tough stance on monopoly exploitation in European companies alike.

Re:EU = still playing where it doesn't belong

[inasra]

No one is asking for any IP. All that is being asked for is the specs.
It should rightfully contain what are the inputs to be given for different functions and what output is returned. No one needs to know the source of the function. And its not like the courts are asking MS to hand hold their competitors and teach them how to build a particular widget. Just throw the various APIs out in the open already.

Re:EU = still playing where it doesn't belong

[drsmithy]

As we all know by now, MicroSoft cannot handle competition. So what did Microsoft do? What they always do, they changed the API and then didn't tell anyone. So now all kinds of MAPI complient applications started breaking, well except theirs of course, since they had all the documentation and the rest of the word didn't.

For example ?

How can they?

[Anonymous Coward]

How can someone write down (document) the undocumented protocol?

Re:How can they?

[Hucko]

try undisclosed/unpublished in place of undocumented

Re:How can they?

[xC0000005]

In MAPI? (We are talking about MAPI32, right?) Which undocumented/undisclosed APIs are you referring to?

Re:How can they?

[drsmithy]

How can someone write down (document) the undocumented protocol?

I don't want the "undocumented protocol" documented, I want examples of applications that broke because they'd been written to use a documented API which was subsequently changed without notice (or further documentation).

Why

[Anonymous Coward]

"yes, Microsoft is disclosing interoperability protocols and other who want to used should pay"

Why? Why should petrol companies pay money to car makers to be allowed to pump petrol into their cars?
There is no special right there, on the contrary, monopolies are NOT ALLOWED TO RAISE artificial barriers like that, and whether it's done by withholding the documentation or by slapping a hefty price tag on it, it's not allowed either way.

I agree - I should be paid for committing crimes.

[Anonymous Coward]

I totally agree. That's the way it should be for me too. Let's say I steal your car and get caught. When I give it back to you, you should have to pay me at least 20% of the value of the car for returning it and also a 50 dollars a day for parking. Of course that's assuming I agree to give it back; otherwise I should have to pay you a 10 cent a month duty, unless of course I wrote a note saying that it's actually mine.

MSJustice for Everybody. Well, for me at least.

Re:EU = still playing where it doesn't belong

[Anonymous Coward]

>Maybe it's different in Britain

No, it's exactly the same; we have MS fanboy idiots here too.

MOD PARENT UP!

[martin-boundary]

He speaks the truth:)

Monopoly

[argent]

And why should MS allow others to interoperate with their email or other protocols?

Because they have a monopoly.

Before MS, IBM ruled the computing world, with numerous other incompatible operating systems such as DEC/TOPS, DEC/VAX, Univac OS/1100, HP RTOS, etc thrown into the mix.

In other words, nobody had a monopoly on system software... not even IBM, who had several operating systems and application platforms. And interfaces and protocols were publicly available to a degree that seems amazingly open now, no matter how much we griped about foot-dragging back then.

None of these OS's were interoperable, nor could mail even be easily exchanged between them.

Despite the fact that the hardware and I/O devices used incompatible character sets, word sizes, and mathematical operations there were an enormous number of common tools that allowed systems to interoperate, communicate, share data and email. The Internet that we're using to communicate right now is one result of that process.

IBM ruled both the hardware and software market back then, in a way that MS today doesn't even come close. Yet no one forced them to open up their protocols (although the US government did try, and lost).

IBM had nowhere near the monopoly on software and hardware that MS does, and when IBM attempted to prevent plug-compatible hardware manufacturers and software developers from interoperating with them they were rebuffed.

Re:Monopoly

[ClosedSource]

"In other words, nobody had a monopoly on system software... not even IBM, who had several operating systems and application platforms."

I hate to break it to you, but the fact that IBM's monopoly was spread out over multiple operating systems, doesn't make them any less of a monopolist.

Re:Monopoly

[argent]

the fact that IBM's monopoly was spread out over multiple operating systems, doesn't make them any less of a monopolist.

There's nothing illegal about being a monopoly. The problem comes when a monopolist attempts to use its monopoly to leverage its position in other markets. IBM allegedly did that, BUT without a single unified API IBM had to maintain interoperability internally and so couldn't use closed interfaces and protocols to effectively lock out competition the way Microsoft can and has.

Aieee

[carrier lost]

This just keeps getting better.

I might be falling in love with the EU. If they could do something about the RIAA I'd be in nirvana.

Re:Aieee

[cyrtainne]

The RIAA has made America the laughing stock of the world trying to prosecute that ten year old girl and attempting to meet her in person. They've secured their position on being the most hated organization in history since the Nazis. I don't know where they get their funding, but those funding them should consider how their money is affecting both the market and the world. As far as Microsoft goes - PAY UP!

Re:EU sucks.

[Anonymous Coward]

You probably live in wrong package system.

Re:EU = still playing where it doesn't belong

[DrPies]

So what did Microsoft do? What they always do, they changed the API and then didn't tell anyone. So now all kinds of MAPI complient applications started breaking, well except theirs of course, since they had all the documentation and the rest of the word didn't.
Do you have any examples of applications that suddenly stopped working or of any changes that were made to the API?

I am mainly interested because all the MAPI code I have written in the past still functions correctly.

Re:Royalty Why pay?

[kurt555gs]

Microsoft isnt going to have to open their code, just the format. Remember Microsoft is a CONVICTED MONOPOLIST here in the US. This is no different than a pedophile having to register their address with the police.

With true interoperability, then competitors such as Openoffice.org or Mplayer can compete on technology.

There is no reason Microsoft should be allowed to keep protocols or codecs for media secret, and absoultly no basis to charge for them.

there are not Copyright able and patents do not apply every where. Patents should not apply to software in the USA either.

Cheers

Im LOVIN this Eu

[unity100]

at this rate, im going to bear children from all commissioners. and thats despite im straight male. you go figure.

Re:Interoperability -- commodity definition

[Anomylous Howard]

Yes, I agree. IT is more pervasive and it is more mature. It is becoming a commodity. Commodities are generally defined, regulated, and graded by standards. There are strict definitions for the size of shrimp you buy in bulk, or the quality/type of crude oil. I assume that when nuts and bolts were first invented and used, different manufactures used different thread sizes and counts on their bolts. Different sizes and number of sides to their nuts. You had buy from the same manufacturer to ensure compatibility. Now we have standards, and life is better. In the beginning every computer hardware company made it's own software and protocols. They had to. Now were are making standards and life is getting better.

Brad Delp Did Do It

[Anonymous Coward]

Brad Delp Did Do It

ATKINSON, N.H. - Brad Delp, the singer for the band Boston who killed himself last week, left behind a note in which he called himself "a lonely soul," according to police reports released Thursday.

The note was paper-clipped to the neck of Delp's shirt when police found his body at his Atkinson home, on the bathroom floor, his head on a pillow. He had sealed himself inside with two charcoal grills; toxicology tests showed he had committed suicide by carbon monoxide poisoning.

"Mr. Brad Delp. J'ai une ame solitaire. I am a lonely soul," the note reads.

Delp joined Boston in the mid-1970s and sang two of its biggest hits, "More than a Feeling" and "Long Time." He was cremated Wednesday, after a private funeral earlier in the week.

His fiancée, Pamela Sullivan, called police March 9 after noticing a dryer vent tube connected to the exhaust pipe of Delp's car. In the garage, police found a note taped to the door leading into the house.

"To whoever finds this I have hopefully committed suicide. Plan B was to asphyxiate myself in my car. I had to do it."

In another note on a door at the top of the stairs, Delp cautioned that there was carbon monoxide inside.

Re:EU = still playing where it doesn't belong

[OohAhh]

... what free market dictates as the doctrine of the best product being the best selling one

The doctrine, or even dogma, may claim that, but the reality is different. The best selling product will be the best marketed product which is not necessarily the best product.

Royalties?

[seebs]

If it's a percentage, I see a great opportunity for someone with money to spare to have a lot of fun giving stuff away.

Re:Interoperability -- commodity definition

[danbert8]

If I had mod points, I'd give them all to you. You sir, know what you are talking about.

Wrong title

[Anonymous Coward]

It should be "EC Rejects Microsoft Royalty Proposal".

true, but...

[Wooky_linuxer]

it is also true that *any* government at any place should be worried that a single company, american or otherwise, holds so much power on its IT infrastructure. Even if MS was the most ethical company in the world, I'd still be worried. Bigger companies have vanished. Come on, weren't Lenovo notebooks banished from US Defense department IIRC (silly, as if all notebooks weren't made in China)? All countries worry about enterprises from other countries up to a certain level. In the case of MS, it is more than justified.

Re:true, but...

[TheNetAvenger]

it is also true that *any* government at any place should be worried that a single company, american or otherwise, holds so much power on its IT infrastructure.

Control uh? Have you ever heard of OPEC?

But seriously, I actually agree with your ideals, but unfortunately it isn't this black and white. It doesn't matter what level of 'control' MS has, it is about the $$ that leaves the EU as much as it is about any technical 'control' issues.

Re:true, but...

[Wooky_linuxer]

If having a pool of countries controlling the oil market is bad, then having a single company controlling the OS market is even worse. I concur the EU might be more simpathetic had MS (and Apple in the iTunes DRM question) been european. I just don't think it is all about cashflow, even if it all boils down to money in the end. Having a single company that can prevent all other (european) companies from suceeding is not good in their eyes.

Re:Royalty Why pay?

[suv4x4]

Microsoft isnt going to have to open their code, just the format. Remember Microsoft is a CONVICTED MONOPOLIST here in the US. This is no different than a pedophile having to register their address with the police.

But, of course! A software company that supplies the OS for over 90% of the desktop PC-s, and a man who rapes little kids - exactly the same thing!

Simple is genius, and you man, have gallons of wisdom to share with the world. Keep posting, keep posting!!

forced them to open up their protocols

[dpilot]

Funny you should mention that...

IBM actually WAS forced to open up protocols and specifications. I have actually held in my own hands the "360 OEM Channel Specification" once upon a time. It was the very document that allowed 3rd parties to connect their peripherals to IBM mainframes, and I believe that it was one of a range of similar documents that IBM was required to divulge.

It's all well and good to be feisty and innovative as a company. But once you've become "the Standard of the industry" things become different. Because you're now "the Standard" everyone has to interoperate with you, or they're out of business. In that position it's easy to abuse the Standard and keep yourself on top for as long as that industry continues. In a worse context, it allows you to "manage" the pace of change of the industry, so you can remain on top. But in this same context, the industry dominator remains on top to the detriment of that industry, simply because innovation has been slowed and channeled.

The "documentation remedy" was good for IBM and the industry then, and I would argue that it's good for Microsoft and the industry now. Furthermore, it wasn't the "documentation remedy" that brought IBM down, it was a sea-change in the industry. If anything, the "documentation remedy" has helped the mainframe industry survive better into the PC era.

You are wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Morally Legal: Any company can keep its jewels
Morally Illegal: Company cannot force(contract) others companies to not to use others jewels(banning thiry party install, banning exclusive use of its protocols, etc)
Tail-piece: Any company can do any thing, unless first company does not restrict second company from using third companies' products on the same machine. Let the second company decide.

Microsoft has no European analogue...

[Savage-Rabbit]

Just another Boeing-vs-Airbus dispute, except Microsoft has no European analogue. And that pisses the EU off far, far more than anything Microsoft itself could ever do. It worked pretty well didn't it? Boeing's near monopoly of the airliner market was eroded to a point where there is now real competition. You can still piss and moan about state subsidies and easy loans being handed to Airbus and you can also piss and moan about the way Boeing is being handed access to materials and technologies developed on behalf of the US Govt. for military purposes practically free of charge for use in it's airliner business and the way Military contracts with Boeing are being used as a covert way of subsidizing them but in the end the fact remains that there is now competition and all the aforementioned pissing and moaning means is that the US Govt. is being a bit more subtle about subsidizing it's champion than the Airbus partner nations. You can't fault the EU for trying to recycle a successful tactic. Keep in mind that the European analog to Microsoft Windows and Co. which the EU is trying to shore up is a distributed industry of thousands of software companies, some of whom are Linux centric while others are, believe it or not, Microsoft centric. Collectively they makeup a sort-of analog to Microsoft. The European Software industry may not be as large as that of the USA but the curious myth that seems to be circulating in the USA that the European Software industry doesn't exist at all is very wrong.

Interoperability with what? I had to explain to a coworker just last week (after she made a v8-specific PDF that no one could open)... If you just tell Acrobat to always save in v4 compatible mode, everyone in the world can read it. Same goes for MS Office. Just save it Word/Excel 98 mode, and plenty of other programs can open it. So why doesn't Word/Excel 98 allow users to open the latest Word/Excel formats? Why do Word/Excel users have to go through the "Could you re-send me that file in Office 98 format please..." routine? Could it be that this is because Microsoft doesn't make them because they want to force customers into an expensive upgrade? Could it be that Microsoft is deliberately keeping these formats secret to prevent third party developers from creating plugins or utilities that do this because it would cut into their sales? My friend has a 40 year old car for which he can still get parts and even upgrades that are made by third party specialist companies because the original manufacturer doesn't support this model anymore. Everybody considers this to be perfectly normal and yet it isn't normal for third party Software outfits to create third part add-ons for Word/Excel 98 giving their users the ability to open or convert Office 2007 files. Perhaps we should allow car manufacturers to sue third party parts makers who make parts for discontinued car models into the ground so that sales of new cars will be boosted? If the EU succeeds in forcing MS to be a bit mor open when it comes to others being able to implement their file formats and protocols I'm all for it. Perhaps you actually like having to upgrade an obscenely expensive office suite every 4-5 years because Microsoft needs to add a new layer of your money to it's already overflowing coffers... I certainly don't.

Someone else already said it, but I'll repeat: EU policies send a very, very clear message - Don't set up shop in the EU. To me it sounds more like they are saying: If you want to do business with the 494 million+ potential customers in the 27 EU member countries be prepared to compete fairly or receive a swift kick in the fundament.

Just a fight among big companies

[ClosedSource]

"Three Microsoft rivals that have reviewed the group's pricing scheme extensively - understood to be IBM, Sun and Oracle - come to the same conclusion: "The prices charged by Microsoft are prohibitive and would not allow them to develop products that would be viable from a business perspective," the Commission charge sheet says."

It looks like these 3 companies won't have to worry about emerging competition from MS in the server space. The EU can sleep peacefully knowing that prices won't drop.

Re:EU = still playing where it doesn't belong

[init100]

And don't give the whiny speech about how EU only does this to US companies, Microsoft or your granny.

And if one does, you could always remind him of the alleged incident where the US government forwarded Airbus bid information gathered through the ECHELON system to Boeing, allowing Boeing to undercut Airbus bid.

Re:EU sucks.

[Anonymous Coward]

When I uninstalled it, the only thing left behind were some config files that most programs leave behind anyway for in case you reinstall it later. Alls I did was delete the folder. I did a search on my machine for any more references and the only thing I found was a reg key saying that it was a recently opened program. Oooo. Big whoop. Get over it.

Hey,why not zero pct royalty on iPod's too!

[notaprguy]

Those Europeans really have it down! If you can't compete in a modern economy then REGULATE! It's brilliant. Why pay for something when you can make it free! Nest up, iTunes! After that? Who knows. For those of you who might think I'm some sort of right-wing idiot, anti-government, anti-regulation of any type...I'm not. I just donated $500 each to Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton. I'm a member of Common Cause. But that doesn't mean that I think the EU has the slightest fucking clue about how the software industry works. They should keep the fuck out.

Re:Hey,why not zero pct royalty on iPod's too!

[ClosedSource]

I don't buy that argument simply because the companies that stand to gain the most from the EU effort are American companies: e.g. IBM, Sun etc.

Re:Royalty Why pay?

[drinkypoo]

Microsoft isnt going to have to open their code, just the format.

My understanding is that the spec sometimes says "do it the way Microsoft Word 4.0" does it, and the like. If that is true, and I have not simply had smoke blown up my back door, then they indeed will have to open some code, or revise the specification quite heavily.

stop foaming at the mouth

[Anonymous Coward]

The foam spewing from your mouth is so frothy, I had to actually clean my monitor.

MS's reign will end sooner if we leave them alone

[itsbob5678]

Let them maintain their juggernaut of proprietary systems and high prices. If you can't sub out a piece without replacing the entire system, then you now have an incentive to replace the entire system. But there aren't any replacements available because they have a monopoly!? I admit that one issue with the free market is that it doesn't always offer a timely solution, but I solemnly believe that we'd all be better off down the line if we don't sand off a couple of the offending barbs, and leave them as incentives for the market to fix. What if MS forced a patch on all their windows products that caused them to crash if someone tried to run Firefox, or anything besides IE? This would be a much more direct anti-competitive tactic than putting an IE icon on the desktop or interweaving it throughout windows. I use Firefox more than any other piece of software on my computer, I would have a huge incentive to switch to anything else. But there are no other satisfactory options? Maybe it wouldn't happen in a month, or maybe even 4 months, but do you seriously doubt that the free market couldn't provide me an OS alternative eventually? Regulate away that "illegal anti-competitive patch" and you regulate away incentive to provide alternatives. It's always tempting to fix an immediate problem (supposed monopoly for instance) with regulation, but let the problems fester and I think entrepreneurs will find a better solution in the long run. I suppose there's a good chance the alternative could take 5 years to develop, so maybe regulation is the only short term solution. I just think we're shooting ourselves in the foot in that case.

Re:Royalty Why pay?

[theun4gven]

But, of course! A software company that supplies the OS for over 90% of the desktop PC-s, and a man who rapes little kids - exactly the same thing!

How true, I'd much rather deal with the rapist.

ICQ protocol must be open. EU have to sue AOL

[Anonymous Coward]

What a hell is going on?

Microsoft

[Master of Transhuman]

Fuck 'em...

Put them out of business - they're a fucking state-supported monopoly anyway (state-supported because Bush wouldn't enforce their conviction and they use contract law to maintain their monopoly.)

Tough shit they get no royalties.

So fuck 'em.

Re:Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

You know why he didn't enforce the conviction? Microsoft was the second largest donor to the 2000 Bush Campaign right behind Enron. As they say you scratch my back and ...

And what well know lobbyist was directing the large amounts of cash to a certain political party and it's members? If you said Jack Abramoff you would be right again.

And what firm did Abramoff work for during his relationship with Microsoft? If you said Preston, Gates, and Ellis you would be correct again.

And does that Gates in Preston, Gates, and Ellis have anything to do with Bill Gates. Yes it would since it stands for William H. Gates, the father of Microsoft founder Bill Gates.

As for Microsoft: Karma's a bitch, isn't it?

It's theft and extortion plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

It was theft (at least that is what the U.S government and Apple fans said) when the French proposed forcing Apple to open up Fairplay DRM to competitors, and The EU's impression of Robin Hood in the Microsoft case is theft as well. What next will they raid a Microsoft warehouse and give away the products, or force Microsoft to release the source code for Windows? It doesn't help that the EU Commission has been quite vague in what they want in terms of documentation, and quick to criticize and punish.

Theft and extortion I say.

Re:EU = still playing where it doesn't belong

[xC0000005]

Just curious - which MAPI APIs are you saying changed? The provider I wrote back in 98/99 still works with current MAPI32 implementations.

Re:Royalty Why pay?

[suv4x4]

How true, I'd much rather deal with the rapist.

If I give you two options: a) put up with Windows on your PC b) hand your kid to a pedophile

You'd pick b) !? Oh wait, this is Slashdot...

Re:EU = still playing where it doesn't belong

[RightSaidFred99]

What a load of shit. All the cases against Microsoft were instigated by their "competitors" and the politicians in _their_ back pockets.

the WWW for office documents

[SgtChaireBourne]

Let's extend this just a little farther: How about being able to choose your word processor or spreadsheet tool of choice and not having to be concerned about file formats.

That's why about two dozen companies, businesses, universities and agencies got together about five years ago to hammer out a universal office format. Since then, about five dozen are actively involved in the development and the initial review involved about 600. Last year, this universal office format was accepted and published by the International Organization for Standards as ISO/IEC 26300.

A universal document for hypertext documents (HTML) has proven highly beneficial and profitable, to say the least. It's not hard to imagine similar gains from having a universal document format for office formats.

As I said, the process took five years. M$ was invited to participate early on and could, if its management decided to, still start participating or even using the standard any time. Top engineers in the company have gone on record saying that there are no technical barriers to implementing ISO/IEC 26300 and that it would be rather straight forward to do so. You connect the dots.

The only serious contender against ISO/IEC 26300 has been China's Uniform Office Format. However, the two groups have been working actively to harmonize the specifications.

Monopoly??! What about MAC and Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes I read about crap that various governments impose on companies and wonder how much they are willing to accept before they just leave and withdraw their products from that countries market.

I imagine you would still be able to obtain the software through resellers and third parties if you were living in an effected country.

Why is Microsoft a Monopoly? Do they sell even one product that does not have relevent and serious competition? Linux, MAC.

Whats with the OS internals documentation BS? For crying out loud has anyone in the EU ever been to msdn.microsoft.com?!?? How many DVDs worth of compressed textual information is avaliable on the windows APIs???!?

IP relaliation possible..

[wanax]

See:
http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/ 16/208250

or

http://www.slate.com/id/2153352/?nav=tap3

You're still confused

[ClosedSource]

Maintaining internal interoperability doesn't preclude the use of interfaces and protocols that lock out the competition.

Re:You're still confused

[argent]

Maintaining internal interoperability doesn't preclude the use of interfaces and protocols that lock out the competition.

In theory, you're right. In practice, with the software technology and operating systems of the '60s, it didn't happen. Whether it might have happened if IBM had tried enough to make it happen might be something worth debating over a beer in the Usenix dead dog party some time, but it didn't happen and I'm not drunk enough to care right now.

Re:You're still confused

[ClosedSource]

I'd say it's a safe bet that neither one of us has any personal professional recollection of the "software technology and operating systems" of the '60s or more importantly, the business aspects of the computer industry of that era. The decade that the government spent in court over IBM's alleged monopolistic practices is more evidence than I've seen to support the contention that IBM promoted open standards, but feel free to provide some real evidence next time you hit the bottle.

Re:You're still confused

[argent]

I'd say it's a safe bet that neither one of us has any personal professional recollection of the "software technology and operating systems" of the '60s or more importantly, the business aspects of the computer industry of that era.

You'd lose that bet, friend, so I won't let you put any money on it.

Re:EU = still playing where it doesn't belong

[SanityInAnarchy]

Cite me a source, then. Hell, show me what real "competitors" they had at that point, if you really think that lawsuit wasn't deserved.

Re:EU sucks.

[Bert64]

Out of curiosity i just tried again:
I went to add remove windows components, and found that windows media player, outlook express, internet explorer and windows messenger were already unchecked.
So i went to look in the program files directory, and guess what...
ALL of these programs were still installed, and sitting right there in program files.
Look at this screenshot - http://www.ev4.org/stuff/shit.png

If you know a better way to remove it, do tell, although it's bad enough that the default installer lies to you anyway.

Re:EU = still playing where it doesn't belong

[Opportunist]

Your point being? This economy, based on cartels and price fixing between companies, from software to oil to groceries, still claims being free market.

Of course reality isn't the model. If it was, the communist would've won.

Re:EU = still playing where it doesn't belong

[Opportunist]

No, monopolies aren't bad by themselves. You'll find me as a strong advocates of state controlled monopolies in some areas.

Monopolies are bad if the one holding the monopoly uses it as a lever to increase his own growth at the cost of his customers and business partners, producing inferior products at inflated prices, which do sell because there is no alternative, and by forcing his partners to bend to his will and puts the burden of adapting and conforming onto their shoulders alone, which costs them money and saves money for the holder of the monopoly.

Monopolies can be something very beneficial, if the holder of the monopoly uses it to be able to offer a similar service to all his customers, even if it is uneconomical to offer it to some. A medical service that offers its services at the same rates to inhabitants of remote locations by charging more than "necessary" from the citizens of large towns comes to mind.

In the hand of a company that has first and foremost the gain of its stockholders as their goal, monopolies are usually something very, very bad. They are invariably of the first kind.