Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
Hold on there cowboy...
/. doesn't mean that they deserve that money.
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
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.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
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.
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
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?
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.
Well one would hope that 5.95% of nothing is... :-)
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.)
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
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.
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.
Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
> 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.
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!
Servant of karma
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.
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's seems greedy to think they can get something without some compensation. The anti-trust suit was expected but concessions are concessions.
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?
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.
this guy just took my entire point and made it better.
thank you.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
We would do the same thing as EU, But microsoft is a US company. Hey that what tariff are for.
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.
Yes, yes and yes - if these companies are deemed monopolies.
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
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.
Which they should not have to, as MAPI is (supposedly) an open standard.
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.
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.
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.)
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
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!"
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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.
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.
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.
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.
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].
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
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.
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.
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.
Bot Assisted Blogging
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).
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
> 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.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
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.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
"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.
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.
So you were saying?...
Life is a mystery. There is no point having a mystery if you are not curious.
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.
Life is a mystery. There is no point having a mystery if you are not curious.
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.
hackerkey://v4sw5/7BCHJMPRUY$hw3ln3pr6/7FOP$ck6ma8+9u6L$w4/7CGUXm0l6DLRi82NCe3+9t5Sb7HMOPRen5a17s0DSr1/2p-3.62/-5.23g3/5
As we all know by now, MicroSoft cannot handle competition. So what did Microsoft do? What they always do, they changed the API and then didn't tell anyone. So now all kinds of MAPI complient applications started breaking, well except theirs of course, since they had all the documentation and the rest of the word didn't.
For example ?
Very true. Of course M$ 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
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.
>Maybe it's different in Britain
No, it's exactly the same; we have MS fanboy idiots here too.
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.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
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.
What standards ? In this area of connecting server and client software Microsoft is setting a lot of the standards.
The Wraith http://ooxmlhoaxes.blogspot.com/
He speaks the truth:)
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.
The Wraith http://ooxmlhoaxes.blogspot.com/
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.
Michael Reed, freelance tech writer.
And in any event their main interface is stock standard html.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
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.
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.
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
I will not give in to the terrorists. I will not become fearful.
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.
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
Ok I got you, they HAVE to provide it for free because it is the EU way to fine them ...
Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?
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.
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.
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.
...You are a monopolist that is abusing its power to keep competitors out of the market, right?
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!
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
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
* Carthago Delenda Est *
at this rate, im going to bear children from all commissioners. and thats despite im straight male. you go figure.
Read radical news here
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.
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.
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.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
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.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
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
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
try undisclosed/unpublished in place of undocumented
Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
If I had mod points, I'd give them all to you. You sir, know what you are talking about.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
So what happens when Microsoft don't like what's happening at any time? Do they take their ball and go home?
I never get used to these constant resurrections
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?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
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.
Where is that guy who'd die defending what I had to say when I need him?
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!!
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.
I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress -J Adams
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
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.
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
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.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
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.
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.
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
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.
Microsoft: would you like us to mod you down today?
*ouch*, my karma!
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
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.
www.tdobson.net #### Dare to Dream #### blog.tdobson.net
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
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?
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.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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!!!!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Some pretty stupid fucks have become moderators lately. How my post was modded down as Troll is beyond me.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Just curious - which MAPI APIs are you saying changed? The provider I wrote back in 98/99 still works with current MAPI32 implementations.
www.voiceofthehive.com - Beekeeping and Honeybees for those who don't.
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...
What a load of shit. All the cases against Microsoft were instigated by their "competitors" and the politicians in _their_ back pockets.
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.
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.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
The issue is not about the content of information (anymore) but about the price of that information.
The Wraith http://ooxmlhoaxes.blogspot.com/
In MAPI? (We are talking about MAPI32, right?) Which undocumented/undisclosed APIs are you referring to?
www.voiceofthehive.com - Beekeeping and Honeybees for those who don't.
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.
See:/ 16/208250
http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11
or
http://www.slate.com/id/2153352/?nav=tap3
Maintaining internal interoperability doesn't preclude the use of interfaces and protocols that lock out the competition.
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.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
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).
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?
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.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
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)
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
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.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
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
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.
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.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.