Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Responds to EU With Another Question
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft has responded to the latest round of EU requests by asking how much the EU thinks they should charge for Windows Server Protocols. The EU has stated the Microsoft should charge based on 'innovation, not patentability' and that they have 'examined 160 Microsoft claims to patented technologies' concluding 'only four may only deserve to claim a limited degree of innovation.' The EU is also starting to discuss structural remedies as opposed to the behavioral remedies they are currently enforcing. At what point has/will the EU overstepped its bounds?"
What point could it?
Well if it bankrupted the company then yes that would be too far certainly. If it made it so the company when complying with the law (ie not being fined) could not actualy make a profit after costs, that would be too far.
Many prices are restricted by goverments - I suspect even in the US though I don't know for certain. Things like the cost per unit of electricity, water, gas, telecoms, public transport when run by private companies. These are to ensure that companies that have effective monopolies cannot abuse the position.
Same with mircosoft. I agree they should be able to charge what they want for their software. But where they have a protocol or an API that completely separate instance of software talk to (eg from a different computer on the network of from a piece of software that is not part of the OS, or not part of the same software suite) then those interfaces, protocols and APIs should be documented and the information provided for free.
Yes they can protect their code and their implementations, but the fact you have a microsoft server should not force you to have a microsoft desktop in order to use it - other desktop made by others should be able to communicate on the same level. And vice versa, it should be perfectly possible, from complete and freely available documentation to implement a server that will behave from a clients point of view in the same way a microsoft server would. This is simply fair competition.
Microsoft would then have to get by on the merits of it software, rather than on vendor lock in.
$_="Slashdotter";$syn="OTT";s;..;;;sub _{print shift||$_};s!ash!Perl !;s=$syn=ack=i;tr+LLEd+BLAH+;_"Just Another ";_
The EU should just tell MS how much they can charge and get on with it. Why the pointless back and forth?
The hell with it - MS should have to open them for free. In fact, I'd be in favour of mandating that _all_ protocols should be open. You don't need to open your implementation, but other people should be able to use your protocols.
My Journal
Sure, but I don't agree that a totally free market is the ultimate end goal that we should judge things by. Honestly, I'm not really sure what criteria would be best used as a measure, but I do believe that free markets are merely a generally good way to get there, not the end goal itself. As far as patents are concerned, I disagree that they are a bad thing. Besides the standard argument of protecting innovation, they also serve the important role of exposing most innovations to public record. Sure, the companies get a temporary monopoly, but once that time has expired we are left with all records of the innovations as a matter of public record. To my mind, that is a lot better than having to deal with a bunch of companies that hoard their trade secrets so that they never see the light of day.
Assuming the EU has the power, the next question is should it? Well, I personally think it's going to be the only way to bring Microsoft into line. It has a long history of nodding yes to the courts and the authorities, and then just finding some new way of doing what it wants. The EU certainly has had limited success getting Microsoft to even adhere to the demands it has made already, and certainly cannot be ignorant of Microsoft's behavior in elsewhere in the world. Since Microsoft won't co-operate in any meaningful way, likely won't stop the behavior that has lead to the present impasse, what other option is there than to remake it into something that will obey European rules?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The commision ruled in 2004 that Microsoft broke European competition laws and directed them to release complete interoperability documentation on the protocols, MS pretended to not understand what the Commision was on about and released some source code. The Commision also said that MS acted to stifle innovation by tying Media Player to Windows.
The real question is whether a single company should get a lock in on PROTOCOLS, never mind what they should charge for them. Is this an example of the polluted protocols MS talked about in that Valloppillil email.
"By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we can DENY OSS projects ENTRY into the MARKET."
'At what point has/will the EU overstepped its bounds'
At what point will MS realise it isn't dealing with the DOJ?
davecb5620@gmail.com
...and are less motivated to work on your next project
So let me get this straight: In order to preserve the "free market", the government has to introduce special incentives to motivate people to produce useful stuff?
Maybe I missed something in economics class, but I thought the whole point of a "free market" was that the market itself created the incentives, and that government distortion of those incentives leads to inefficiency...
Of course, personally I think that intervention and tampering with markets can often be a good thing (by legitimate, functioning democratic institutions, not corrupt governments), I just had to point out that your own reasoning is contradictory: Patents are a distortion of a "free market", so abolishing them can't possibly jeopardize the freedom of said market.