Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Finally Bows to EU Antitrust Measures

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the thats-a-lot-of-cash dept.

Rogue Pat writes "Microsoft ended three years of resistance on Monday and finally agreed to comply with a landmark 2004 antitrust decision by the European Commission. Competitors will be able to buy interface protocols for 10.000 Euro to make their software work better with Windows. Moreover, Microsoft won't appeal the 500 million Euro fine any further."

39 of 365 comments (clear)

  1. Microsoft should have payed the fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If they had started paying it initially, with the decrease of the dollar and increase of the euro, it would have saved them a lot of money.

    1. Re:Microsoft should have payed the fine by clickety6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, the $ has falled roughly 15% against the Euro since then so on the initial fine of roughly 500 million euro they could have saved approximately 75 million euro by paying on time. (All figures very very approximate!) Plus the extra 280 million euro they got fined last year as well! They could have financed development of the XBox720 for that much! ;-)

      --
      ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
    2. Re:Microsoft should have payed the fine by truthsearch · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They aren't two completely independent companies. And the issue for investors isn't directly the small hit to Microsoft's purse or which division of the company pays. But rather their choice to fight for market share at just about any expense. Often times playing friendly is more profitable long term.

      --
      Developers: We can use your help.
  2. Took long enough... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think the saddest thing here is that it seems to take us three years to enforce a judgement against a major corporation, and even then the reporting in the media is all written as if Microsoft have kindly agreed to co-operate and not as though they've been forced to accept the judgement of a court that found they had done wrong and ordered them punished for it. If legal systems are this slow, it's no wonder people get concerned about the power of megacorps and that we see everyone from Big Software to Big Media taking some pretty major liberties with things like antitrust law.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    1. Re:Took long enough... by PenguSven · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the EU folds before the payment is made, is it still owed? You're kidding right? the EU is the largest economy in the world.
      --
      What is...?
    2. Re:Took long enough... by rucs_hack · · Score: 1, Insightful

      in many cases you would be right, but in this case that secret is important information that is holding back anyone else from being able to compete fairly with Microsoft on the dominant platform, which Microsoft also control.

      It is analogous to making and selling the only car most people use, but refusing to tell anyone else how to make the best petrol for it, so no-one buys petrol from the competition, or if they do its not as good. Sooner or later someone is going to start complaining of monopoly.

      No-one is asking Microsoft to hand over all their secrets, and no-one is asking that they do so for no money. All that is required is that they not abuse their dominant position.

    3. Re:Took long enough... by mgblst · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If I have a secret, I don't care what the antitrust european court says, it's my secret, they shoudln't take that nor my money away for me.

      If you are in the US, then this is damn hilarious. The US, where toture has become accepted practice to obtain secrets.

      Microsoft can keep there secrets, but it is going to cost them. They are free to get up and leave Europe, I am sure we will do fine. The simple fact is, that if they did that, then a huge amount of effort would be put into getting Linux as a perfect replacement. This would weaken Micrsofts stronghold on the rest of the world as well.

    4. Re:Took long enough... by Daimanta · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Fine if you want to keep it a secret, stay out of the EU. Nobody is forcing you to start a business.

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    5. Re:Took long enough... by gmack · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If I have a secret, I don't care what the antitrust european court says, it's my secret, they shoudln't take that nor my money away for me.

      Except that there is no justifiable reason for keeping it a secret since pretty much all of their "secrets" were proprietary extensions based on already known protocols. In fact, some of those protocols were items Microsoft pushed onto the standards track themselves so they have no excuse really.

    6. Re:Took long enough... by Bert64 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And relying on a single company is a ridiculously dangerous situation for any organization to be in. Whoever runs such organizations and allows this situation to arise should be fired for incompetence. The need for a second source and backup plan should be a basic requirement of any business purchasing decision.
      Contrast this to say, Dell... If you buy all your computers from Dell, and suddenly they pull out of your market... You can start buying new computers from HP instead with very little disruption to your operations.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    7. Re:Took long enough... by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Torture, according to international law, is "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

      I hope that clears it up. There are some prisons that I would consider torturous, and others that aren't. The key is the intent to cause suffering.

    8. Re:Took long enough... by orcrist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      but couldn't microsoft essentially say that their software was no longer allowed to be purchased or used by any country in the EU

      So let me get this straight. You think Microsoft could tell a sovereign nation what they are "allowed" to do within their borders?
      --
      San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
    9. Re:Took long enough... by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Shouldn't feed the troll, who has lost the argument already, however....

      1. ~10 years ago the US determined that, under US law, it was illegally using it's monopoly in one section of a market to dominate another. The fact your government did nothing about it is not our fault. Look closer to home first before complaining.

      2. The Vichy government was put in place under threat of arms - you have absolutely no understanding of history; the Vichy government did everything it could to resist, just in other ways. You really think the Normandy landings would have been half so succesful without the intelligence gained by la resistance?

      3. Stop being a troll - MS knowingly and repeatedly broke laws, and not due to any morality issue. They did it to continue what has been a succesful model for them, using their monopoly position to extend their hold into other markets, and thought they'd get away with it - after all, the US never enforced a judgement, so they thought they could carry on as usual.

      Now, stop before you look even more stupid, please

    10. Re:Took long enough... by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Yes, MS could do this, and force the EU into a quick migration plan (well, after the EU government has declared MS's copyright null and void in the EU). After this they can witness MS stock plummet to 5 bucks overnight, while any linux firm quadruples their stock price. Then, the MS execs should better prepare to fence off the lawsuits from stockholders as they are facing interesting days in court and possibly jail.

      And that's just the first day. Soon it will become obvious that international companies with branches in the EU need to migrate away from MS as well if they want to keep their software homogeneous in their enterprise, subsequently forcing, in time, US national companies that are working with these internationals away from MS. In a year it would be over for MS.

    11. Re:Took long enough... by fritsd · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You drank the Microsoft Kool-aid that interoperability protocols and file formats == trade secrets. Interoperability information CANNOT be trade secrets! Think about it ffs.

      Even the judge of the Court of First Instance was on to Microsoft trying to paint it that way, and he's a judge not a programmer. All involved parties, with the notable exception of Microsoft itself, have repeatedly publicly stated that they DO NOT WISH to see Microsoft's preciousss source code, because that is not required for interoperability.

      --
      To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
    12. Re:Took long enough... by jc42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And at least EU have guts to stand against MicroSoft. Government of USofA hasn't.

      Back during the 2000 US election, it was widely reported that Microsoft had become the largest single campaign contributor to both major parties. This is generally understood as the explanation for why the Justice Dept's case was terminated on terms very friendly to Microsoft shortly after George Bush took office.

      As far as I can determine, Microsoft hasn't become nearly as important a campaign contributor in the EU as it is now in the US. Maybe they'll learn from this, and we'll soon see them bribing European politicians at the appropriate level.

      Give them time; they're still going through the pangs of learning how business is really done at the top levels.

      (Are there web sites listing politicians' contributors in the EU, similar to what you can find in the US? I've seen a few partial lists for single countries, but nothing for the EU as a whole.)

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  3. not good enough by polar+red · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's simple : we need the complete interface specifications for free, when you buy the operation system to use on your desktop.

    --
    Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    1. Re:not good enough by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1, Insightful

      How would you feel if distribution were prohibited for every open source application that didn't provide and maintain comprehensive, correct documentation on all their interfaces and protocols?

      It's called the source code.

      If Microsoft were to simply post their source code up on their website, nobody would be asking them to write this "burdensome" documentation.

    2. Re:not good enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      'How would you feel if distribution were prohibited for every open source application that didn't provide and maintain comprehensive, correct documentation on all their interfaces and protocols?'

      All open source applications already do that - it's called the source code.

  4. So still refusing to comply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So yet again they're still refusing to comply, they've just dropped the price and announced they're now complying when they're patently not?

    This is no different to when they paid the last fine and announced they'd finally given in to the EU demands and offered the documentation at 50k with restrictive license.

    So they drop the price a little, and the restrictions a little, but so what? It's the same game. The EU needs to force compliance here. Or they'll play this game forever.

  5. Whence the chipper tone? by the+bluebrain · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So Microsoft simply caved, and will now co-operate fully with all comers, and will comply with the letter (if not the spirit) of the ruling?

    Balls. They've just taking the fight to the next level, that's all. The expression "cold, dead hands", comes to mind, when contemplating any usable spec belonging to MS.

    --
    yes, we have no bananas
  6. Re:This is Great! by b4stard · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Unless the specs are coupled with NDA's. If so, not many FOSS-devs will be able to pay up the 10k. Guessing the big guys (Ibm, Sun, et al) will help us out though.

  7. Microsoft still wins by m2943 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    $10k is peanuts for commercial companies. It even is peanuts for open source companies. But the fact that there is any fee at all means that the information is not public, and this will likely exclude open source competitors, which is what Microsoft wants most of all.

    Fortunately, there may be workarounds: people can write small binary-only Microsoft compatibility plug-ins which plug into larger open source applications that eventually can replace Microsoft's applications.

    1. Re:Microsoft still wins by anarxia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or write a "reference" implementation. It's no substitute for documentation but it will help those that cannot/will not buy the specification.

    2. Re:Microsoft still wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      $10k is peanuts for commercial companies. It even is peanuts for open source companies. But the fact that there is any fee at all means that the information is not public

      Well, no. E.g. You have to pay a fee for most public documents (say, court records), but you're free to redistribute them. If they're copyrighted, you can still write your own documentation/description of the information and distribute that. (Remember folks, copyright only covers the expression, not the idea itself) Take the Linux kernel and POSIX for example. Linus originally said his OS wouldn't be POSIX-compliant because he couldn't afford to pay for the spec. Today Linux is pretty much entirely POSIX-compliant, despite noone (except Linux-FT?) having ponied up the cash. This is because POSIX has been re-documented in plenty of other places.

      So the pertinent question isn't really whether there's a fee or not, or even whether there's a copyright on the docs or not. The most important question in my mind, is whether the info will be available under an NDA or not.

  8. Re:Paid for the dinner by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, it's most probably because Microsoft paying for the meal could be interpreted as bribery.

  9. I still don't understand .... by Alain+Williams · · Score: 4, Insightful
    will we be able to use this in an OSS project ?

    What restrictions come with the specification that we pay 10,000 Euros for? If there are restrictions on what we can do with the knowledge gained, then we can't use it. M$ could argue that publishing code written using their spec is the same as publishing their spec and so everyone who reads the code has to pay 10k Euros.

    Until this is explained in full: we need to hold back on popping the champagne corks.

    How good will the spec be? If it is anything like the OOXML one then there will still be huge holes. M$ is smart enough to only publish in the spec the bits that have been reverse engineered: this allows it to claim that it has revealed a lot without adding anything to what is known by the rest of us.

  10. NDA? by jfbilodeau · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What about NDA? Could we purchase the specs and share them openly?

    --
    Goodbye Slashdot. You've changed.
  11. Only 10,000 euros! by Richard+W.M.+Jones · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So after years of illegally leveraging their monopoly to drive others out of business and drive up the price of software and goods, their "punishment" is to charge people even more. This "justice" things sounds great, wish I could get some of that!

    Rich.

    --
    libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images
  12. Re:I heard oink-oink outside of my window... by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Mods never heard of the expression "When Pigs Fly", right?

  13. Re:right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    To publish source code that uses the specification is to reveal the specification itself. As far as I can tell, all that is really needed is for one of the open source companies to buy a bunch of MS specifications and give away trivial programs that make use of the MS-provided information. The trivial program might be for "non-commercial use only", but that says nothing of derived works that have no similarity to the original code.

  14. Code is not interface documentation by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Open Source software generally comes along with the interface document, the code itself.

    I'm both surprised and disappointed that within a few minutes of my post, three people have all challenged it on this basis.

    Just dumping the whole code base is in no way an acceptable substitute for providing good interface documentation. Sure, code should be self-documenting by using appropriate names in interfaces. Sure, designs should be clean and easy to understand. But the goal of this ruling is to facilitate interoperability in the spirit of the law. It is unreasonable to require people to scan through all the implementation code for something just to find out how the interface works and use it. That's not documenting the interface to aid interoperability, it's obfuscating it to make the effort required for compatibility prohibitive. So if the replies I'm getting are anything to go by, it sounds like a lot of work would be required for your average OSS project to comply with this ruling. If it's unfair to expect it of them, why is it fair to expect it of a business?

    I'm no big fan of Microsoft in this case — read my first post to the discussion if you're in any doubt about that — but I do think that any penalty awarded by the courts has to be reasonable. You can't use a requirement that a monopoly allow interoperability as an excuse to get access to all their source code and trade secrets. That isn't fair, even on Microsoft, and it certainly wouldn't be fair on the many smaller companies in niche markets who might be subject to the same ruling once the precedent is set.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  15. Re:any takers by porkThreeWays · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I see a lot of comments it will be open source projects or open source project backers. I reeeeeeally don't think they will be the largest purchasers. Many people don't realize how many software companies have products that modify the behavior of MS products. There have to be at least thousands. Think of all the products that do file system operations. All the products that work with Outlook and Exchange. All the products that work with Office. Anti virus/malware programs. Pretty much any program that is in any way, shape, or form, dependent on how an MS product does things will probably want to purchase specs.

    --
    If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
  16. Re:2 questions by fgaliegue · · Score: 2, Insightful

    From your text above, something quite crucial is missing imho: does this disclosure apply to past, present or future versions of Windows?

    Also, what is a "Windows work group server"? Would that be a PDC, or a simple server on a given workgroup with no domain control features whatsoever?

    And finally...

    > Microsoft should be able to impose reasonable and non-discriminatory conditions to ensure that this access to the disclosed specifications is
    > granted for evaluation purposes only

    "For evaluation purposes only"? Uh, does it imply that these documentations provided do no even need give enough information for a _functional_ implementation, or am I too cynical?

    IMHO, the wording is far too imprecise, and certainly not worth the 10k asked by Microsoft.

    Bah, I guess a fund collect could be raised and the specs handed out to the Samba team. At least, they would be able to tell us whether the 10k are actually worth it, since they already know a lot about these protocols.

  17. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  18. Re:We told you so by boule75 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Absolutely, mod this up !

    Nelly Kroes from the EU just declared Victory to retreat faster. Please read and link the EU press release, there (English only): http://www.europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/07/1567&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

    - Any decisions as to wether Microsoft complies will be made by an English court, some day, with a rule probably but which one nobody knows. But - by Jove ! - those rules have just changed... More delays, more legal battles, more defeats for the good guys.
    - They have not settled about the fees... Or has Reuters more information? Or more disinformation?
    - The press release if filled with patent-talk (with consequences) even while software patents are still not recognised in the EU. In this respect, this IS a full blown victory for the huge patent troll that is MSFT, because the commission plays by US-UK rule.

    Conclusion: the US corps rule the EU through proxies. It's as simple as that.

    Next: more GM food, getting rid of all those bees, enforcing all those patents on living things created long ago. "Someone patented a one-click, so I patented a gene. And _I_ earn money with it! Waaaaa!!!"

    --
    I am not Remy Mouton, unfortunately: http://remy.mouton.free.fr/art/
  19. Re:Only one taker by mabhatter654 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    no, Samba won't, because of this INFORMATION having any terms at all, they should not touch this with a 100 foot pole. The EU sold them out is what just happened. Samba already has BETTER documentation than Microsoft, they were advising the EU on what was necessary versus the line of BS Microsoft was trying to feed the court. Samba only needs about 50 pages of specs to make their implementation complete... this ruling could potentially open Samba up to legal problems because now M$ could claim Samba didn't buy or abide by the license.

    Microsoft WON this case by wearing down the court, the EU didn't effect a punishment that will actually hurt M$ and the ruling will be twisted in M$ favor for years to come. The EU LOST the case!!!

  20. Straw man. by argent · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What if tomorrow KFC was forced to give up the eleven herbs and spices used in their secret recipe?

    Nobody's asking Microsoft to give up their secret recipe. They're asking Microsoft to document how you eat their chicken.

    This isn't information you would use to duplicate Microsoft's software, this is information yu need to make your products work WITH Microsoft's software.

    Netscape tried to sue Microsoft because they felt their browser was unfairly marketed since it came with the system.

    Not only did it come with the system, but Microsoft refused to let computer makers even include Netscape with the system if they wanted to, AFTER they had already agreed not to. On top of that, to try and make an end run around their original deal with the DoJ, they combined the browser and the desktop in an inherently insecure manner that has cost the industry billions of man-hours to the resulting flood of viruses.

    Don't try and whitewash Microsoft's actions in the '90s or pretend that this deal (which is still outrageous) is trying to get hold of information that Microsoft needs to keep secret.

  21. stop selling MS software in Europe by falconwolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    couldn't microsoft essentially say that their software was no longer allowed to be purchased or used by any country in the EU?

    Heck, MS can't stop it's software from being sold in Cuba how in the world can they stop it n Europe?

    Falcon
    --
    Should there be a Law?