Slashdot Mirror
Groklaw Examines Microsoft's Promises
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Groklaw has examined that 'new leaf' Microsoft turned the other day. PJ has a lengthy analysis of Microsoft's latest promises. To make a long story short, the promises are more of the same stuff and don't help anyone but Microsoft. They only protect 'noncommercial' development and are set up to create a patented standards toll road so that Microsoft can charge competitors to compete. As PJ puts it, 'This is a promise to remain incompatible with the GPL, as far as I can make out.'"
Shoot to kill!
Well duh... Did you expect some enlightenment from MS ?
It's what we in the biz call "a load of bullshit," and probably comes from the legal department (by way of marketing), who're possibly worried that the EU might do something to them.
... is the one Ballmer's been wiping his ass with then?
Let's hope they don't have any new chairs!
The promise is to not litigate if you use their patents/documents for non-commercial applications.
The problem is that GPL software cannot have this limitation.
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
You mean to say I printed all these "Sorry I doubted you Microsoft"-T-shirts FOR NOTHING?
Excerpt from a post by lawyer Andrew Updegrove, an open-standards advocate who tracks the issue on his Standards Blog:
I expect that it is no coincidence that this announcement comes just two business days (and only one, for most of the world) before the Ballot Resolution Meeting convenes in Geneva next Monday. This will effectively give those participating in the discussions of Microsoft's OOXML document format no opportunity to fully understand what Microsoft has actually promised to do, while reaping the maximum public relations benefit.
it only requires you provide the source code when you distribute your program. It doesn't mean you have to not charge for software or that software even be free. MS lose nothing if they say distributed win XP with source under the GPL, and it would certainly open up a whole new world of compatability for them that would result in tools that expand their market oppertunities.
it would at the same time prevent competitors taking that code and distributing a product without making the sources available themselfs, which would allow contribution of said sources into MS's own products.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Seems like European Comission has learned something about Microsoft's previous four announcements. Excerpt:
The Commission would welcome any move towards genuine interoperability. Nonetheless, the Commission notes that today's announcement follows at least four similar statements by Microsoft in the past on the importance of interoperability.
ECIS's Thomas Vinje has also issued a statement that is worth reading.
"They [Microsoft's promises] only protect 'noncommercial' development and are set up to create a patented standards toll road so that Microsoft can charge competitors to compete."
Someone could make a really, really scary horror movie: Bill Gates as software's "Dr. Death", killing an OS used by millions of people, wasting their time by releasing software that isn't finished, and generally being dishonest and sneaky and adversarial toward the whole world.
Just when you thought that was as much ugliness as you could handle, there would be scenes of Microsoft Marketing robots spewing corporate-speak and not realizing that they are the undead.
One of the biggest and most respected IT magazines is rejecting Windows Vista: Save Windows XP. Quote: "More than 75,000 people have signed InfoWorld's "Save XP" petition in the three weeks since it was launched - many with passionate, often emotional pleas to not be forced to make a change."
So in other words, it's good for Microsoft's business- and commerical-focused software, and bad for Microsoft's competitors and Richard Stallman, his grand scheme to tell us what software we are allowed to use?
Fixed that for you.
Fixed that for you.
Sounds good to me. Where do I sign up?
Sign up? You're already working for 'em.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
> Groklaw wouldn't be happy unless Microsoft announced that it was filing for bankruptcy and submitting everything they own into the public domain
Wrong. Groklaw just asks that msft stop lying. If msft wants to keep their MSOOXML thing proprietary, that is no problem.
The problem is that msft claims that MSOOXML is an open standard, when it's not.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UVH3800&show_article=1 was just linked to on the drudge report as 'MICROSOFT prepares workers for YAHOO takeover...'.
I laughed...until I stopped laughing.
Either you can refute her arguments or STFU.
Well, there don't appear to be any good programmers in her team. The address of her article when ran against the HTML validator (http://validator.w3.org) returns huge number of errors:
Validation Output: 102 Errors
Not that I have anything against Groklaw, but c'mon, please get your basic HTML stuff right according to HTML standards.
The real story from Groklaw, How to Get Your Platform Accepted as a Standard - Microsoft Style http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071023002351958
I submitted this story last weekend. One of the many juicy excerpts....
I have mentioned before the "stacked panel". Panel discussions naturally favor alliances of relatively weak partners - our usual opposition. For example, an "unbiased" panel on OLE vs. OpenDoc would contain representatives of the backers of OLE (Microsoft) and the backers of OpenDoc (Apple, IBM, Novell, WordPerfect, OMG, etc.). Thus we find ourselves outnumbered in almost every "naturally occurring" panel debate.
A stacked panel, on the other hand, is like a stacked deck: it is packed with people who, on the face of things, should be neutral, but who are in fact strong supporters of our technology. The key to stacking a panel is being able to choose the moderator. Most conference organizers allow the moderator to select the panel, so if you can pick the moderator, you win. Since you can't expect representatives of our competitors to speak on your behalf, you have to get the moderator to agree to having only "independent ISVs" on the panel. No one from Microsoft or any other formal backer of the competing technologies would be allowed - just ISVs who have to use this stuff in the "real world." Sounds marvelously independent doesn't it? In fact, it allows us to stack the panel with ISVs that back our cause. Thus, the "independent" panel ends up telling the audience that our technology beats the others hands down. Get the press to cover this panel, and you've got a major win on your hands.
If you can't win by technical merit, stack the panel and buy the moderator. OpenDoc was superior and I find it interesting that were there again after 10+ years with the OOXML vs ODF battle.
I think Microsoft just killed my subscription(s) to every Pro-Windows magazine I subscribe too (DrDobbs, MSDN, etc). Now every favorable opinion I've read about Microsoft will be biased with a "Did Microsoft purchase that expert opinion?". If you compete against Microsoft you will loose because they control the Pundits/Press, and Moderators. Its all about the marketing, not the technical advantages of your product.
My opinion and I reserve the right to be wrong.
Enjoy,
It's just the normal noises in here.
Groklaw is complaining that, as usual, Microsoft's marketing department is saying something that doesn't match what Microsoft is doing.
Marketing is saying: "Look! We care for open source! We'll release documentation they can use! We want to interoperate!!!"
Meanwhile, they're releasing some documentation that can be used only for non-commercial projects, and they're only saying they won't sue the developers of such projects.
They try to connect "non-commercial" with "open source", when in fact those are distinct, for instance Red Hat uses open source code for commercial purposes, they sell it. Not to mention Microsoft also tries to mix "open source" and "free software", which are also different concepts, and when their marketing department tries to imply they'll be good to free software, in fact their actions are totally against it.
And consider this snippet (from TFA):
BRAD SMITH: With respect to other distributors, and users, the clear message is that patent licenses will be freely available.STEVE BALLMER: Patents will be, not freely, will be available.
BRAD SMITH: Readily available.
STEVE BALLMER: Readily available for the right fee.
I mentioned before, they're saying they won't sue the developers... but the users? Oh... they'll have to license Microsoft's valuable patents to be able to use such software!
In other words, it's all FUD. Marketing doing a big fuss about something that is completely different of what they announce. All to try to look good at EU's eyes. It's still just business at usual, Microsoft way.
Microsoft may brag about their "intellectual property" and put in language like "licensed for non-commercial distribution", but what rights to they actually have? Does anybody seriously think that they have enforceable patents on the binary MS Office format? On OOXML? On the C# language or their half-hearted Java API clones? What kinds of damage claims could they possibly make if people built more interoperable tools? "Judge, our business has been seriously damaged because we have been prevented from monopolizing the market with our obsolete and cumbersome technology?"
Microsoft is in retreat, they just can't get themselves to admit it publicly.
Sounds good to me. Where do I sign up?
Right here
You're welcome
What?
As long as you're nitpicking, HTML isn't a programming language.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Her qualifications as a popular blogger.
I submitted that story, but they didn't carry it. To be fair, though, it *IS* a really old document.
It's from Comes v. Microsoft, where Comes decided to post all the documents it got from Microsoft during the (very expensive) discovery process for free online. Unsurprisingly, they got a quick settlement offer from Microsoft and very quickly took the website down, no doubt as part of the settlement.
However, someone from Groklaw had been spidering it the whole time and wanted to know what should be done with the data, because they had nowhere to host it. That's when I suggested they put it on the Pirate Bay, which is how so many people came to enjoy that huge mass of PDFs. I think this was analyzed at the time, but I don't think it was put into text, although it was discussed for a time on Groklaw. And now, I guess that PJ thought it would be a good time to draw attention to it to negate Microsoft's PR stunt.
As you can see, although it's pretty old, it really shows what Microsoft is all about.
- I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property
"each company has responsibility to its shareholders to maximize the business and profits."..they ALSO have a duty to be of the public good and benefit and not be scumtards. They are GRANTED a license, an incorporation charter, based on all of the above, and if they violate that trust, the charter should be yanked, and in MS case, they passed that line years ago. You can "make shareholders more money" by doing any number of illegal or bogus things, doesn't mean it is right, correct or even marginally legal. How many times do they have to get caught before it sinks in they are a chronically abusive and criminal racketeering organization? They just got caught gaming the ISO standards committee, blatantly. and that's number 6478 on their list of scumbag-duggery, and that is what we only know about.
There's legal lawful and ethical business, and for everything else, there is the mafia, the MAFIAA, and microsoft. At least we got rid of enron. They need to be broken up, shares made worthless, physical plant sold at auction, top jerks investigated for the next 20 years. And I *blame* the jerkoff shareholders for *allowing* long term scumbaggery to go on, they deserve nothing but a full loss at this point, there isn't a single one of them who isn't under some guardianship who doesn't know how vile and wretched that corporation is. They *don't care* how many laws get broken or what nation strongarmed or who gets bribed or how their "profits" come about, or even when their fat retarded CEO makes public threats about patents and nowhere is the SEC around to call him on it, and he gets away with it, so I say, fuck em! I'm not seeing the asshole shareholders demanding he cough up the patents in question, they seem to dig on the threats, they have no ethics either, so screw them! I hope the EU keeps taking those jerks down, just like any other criminal gang. They don't *need* that corporation anymore, they know it is both an economic and a security hazard, so they *will* keep busting them, all the way to out of business in the EU. It's coming! they finally realized being held to ransom every year for billions of dollars to just get shipped out is *insane* when there is no need. The EU will be the first primarily non microsoft region, mark these words, and once MS falls in Europe, it will cascade and start to fall everywhere, because eventually all the businessmen will realize they have been pissing away good money for no real good reason.
Wow, a company is actually out to look out for itself? Amazing.
You people are delusional.
Thinking Microsoft has very little is an opinion, and possibly a valid one. Saying they have nothing, is something else, and quite stupid.
No, what is stupid is to think that there are some magical hidden patents out there. The MS Office format has been around for many years, Microsoft's patents are all known and published, and people look at this stuff regularly.
If you try to make people concerned about Microsoft patents without giving specifics, you're spreading FUD and playing right into Microsoft's hand.
So, either put up and show us specific patents and specific ways in which interoperable open source implementations would infringe, or stop spreading Microsoft's FUD.
and use comments system to comment
"Steve Jobs invented the world" -- Bill W. GATES
As I see it, Microsoft is just saying that they won't sue people who they know can't pay up. Sounds like M$ is just working on litigation efficiency.
-Tim Louden
You said, and I quote: "Nobody is forcing them to make a change. They can run windows xp for as long as they like. People out there are still running windows 95."
That is exactly Microsoft's idea, forcing a change, in my opinion.
If a corporation needs to buy 1,000 new computers, they are placed in a terrible position. Will they buy Windows XP, a product that Bill Gates, software's Dr. Death, has declared is Mainstream Support Retired on 4/14/2009? If they do, they will be forced to pay extra when they can't get official support for Windows XP. And they need official support because of the huge, huge number of vulnerabilities that are found in Microsoft products. Remember that people don't even bother to run anti-spyware and anti-virus software on Apple Macs because they don't have problems. Operating systems don't naturally have vulnerabilities, vulnerabilities are a feature of Microsoft products that make more money for Microsoft.
On the other hand, Windows XP became usable without hassles 3 years after its introduction, with the release of Service Pack 2. There is every clue that Windows Vista will also be full of hassles at least until Vista SP2.
People were forced to upgrade to Windows XP because Windows 98 had an unstable file system, an unstable registry, and lots of problems with the "Blue Screen of Death" and "DLL Hell". That means they had to endure 3 bad years with Windows XP pre-SP2. There have been only 3 relatively good years with Windows XP, and now there is pressure to have bad years again.
That's ugly in my opinion, and I'm not the only one who thinks that way. This is all being done by billionaires who want nothing more than more money. That's sick.
Remember, they are sinking the company over the long term to get short-term profit.
With operating systems, there is lock-in. Linux is not an easy option because re-writing software and re-training 1,000 employees would be too expensive.
It's fine if Microsoft introduces a new product. But there should not be pressure to buy the new product until it is stable.
Having downloaded the office documents formats and the Windows protocol documentation et having had a look at it I wonder why nobody is at least recognizing the fact that this information is no more secret now. So it's a big step in getting the Ms monopoly to be a little less controlling. Here is the links if you want to take a look : Windows Server Protocols http://download.microsoft.com/download/a/e/6/ae6e4142-aa58-45c6-8dcf-a657e5900cd3/windows_server_protocols.zip Windows Communication Protocols http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/5/e/95ef66af-9026-4bb0-a41d-a4f81802d92c/windows_communication_protocols.zip Office Files format (Word, Excel, Powerpoint) http://www.microsoft.com/interop/docs/OfficeBinaryFormats.mspx What do you think ?
MORDOR, Washington, Friday (UnGadget) -- Microsoft today announced a set of carefully-phrased promises to appear more open about its business practices and technologies, so as to expand its reach through developers, partners, customers and competitors' wallets.
The interoperability principles and promises are an apparent, lengthy, reluctant, and necessary step for Microsoft's sudden efforts to fulfill the obligations outlined in the September 2007 judgment of the European Court of First Instance (CFI). And the hope of half a chance of getting OOXML through ISO.
"These pronouncements appear to be an important step and significant change in how we share information about our products and technologies and a significant expansion in apparent transparency," said Microsoft CEO Heave Stallmore. "While we've promised considerable progress over the past several years, today's announcement takes our virtual commitment to a new level.
"For the past thirty years, we have carefully shared misinformation with thousands of now-bankrupt partners around the world. By promoting greater interoperability, opportunity and choice, we hope to share even more of their information to our benefit."
To enable third-party products to connect to Microsoft products, Microsoft will publish for free!!! voluminous documentation, setting a new low in information per page, to contaminate developers with claimed knowledge for which their employers can later be sued, should they not cough up at what Microsoft considers reasonable and non-discriminatory (or not unreasonably so) terms. Open source developers may use these protocols too!!! precisely so long as they do not do anything that involves people not giving Microsoft money.
"The promises announced today by Microsoft will benefit the broader IT community," said Vomit Togel, head of Microsoft partner Perception Management, "where 'IT community' is defined as 'Microsoft partner.' This provides remarkable opportunity for IT consultants and increased choice of us in the marketplace."
Microsoft will expand industry outreach and dialog through an online Interoperability Forum and Fee Collection Channel. In addition, an initiative will address data exchange between widely deployed bank accounts.
"Sincerity is the key," says Microsoft founder Jill Bates III. "If we can fake that, we've got it made."
Founded in 1975, Microsoft (Nasdaq MNPLY) is the worldwide dominator in software, services and solutions that make people and businesses help it realise its full potential.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
... On the other hand, Windows XP became usable without hassles 3 years after its introduction, with the release of Service Pack 2...Your point about MS Vista is valid, but the perceptions about XP might be based on two quirks. One is that problems fade over time. After about 2½ - 3 years it seems that most people forget the bad things and remember only a rosy picture. I'll get back to that. The other quirk is that people quickly get used to a lower level of performance and adjust their expectations and behavior accordingly. Spam and lost e-mail are the best example, but XP is a lot less flexible in many ways than 2000 was.
Getting back to rosy memories. SP2 was released far behind schedule and long after the initial hype. XP SP2 broke hundreds of applications, many had followed MS dogma about DCOM and other non-standard, mS-annointed methods of developing applications. As far as the whole operating system goes, XP SP2 brought down around 15% of XP machines to the point where the systems had to be rebuilt from scratch. Many reviewers likened the service pack to a trial of pain more like a full operating systems upgrade than a service pack.
Don't even start about the DRM, licensing and interoperability problems that SP2 added.
What's really tragic, is that despite the egregious problems of XP and, later, XP SP2, it seems like a rose garden compared to MS Vista. The good part about Google's emphasis on WINE rather than native Linux, Solaris, or BSD applications would be that it facilitates those who can hold out a bit longer in XP to be able to upgrade to a modern system, hopping off MS Windows completely, and avoiding the twin Tar Babies of MS Office 2007 and MS Vista.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
If a developer wrote a piece of software that was popular and wanted to receive money for his effort, he could sell the software to Microsoft and they could take it commercial without fearing that they would litigate with themselves over the patents used by the product in question. It makes non-commercial developers unpaid Microsoft employees in that if the product has value, Microsoft has the only right to pursue commercialization. I suppose someone else could commercialize but they would need to purchase a patent agreement from Microsoft and that might be too much to bear in a competitive marketplace. Anyway this seems to do more in the long run for Microsoft than anyone else.
What you say makes sense. I suppose a developer could give the software away and then sell services around it. That is one popular way of making a living in the open source world. If Microsoft them wanted to commercialise the software, presumably thye would have to negotiate with the developer for the NON-Microsoft aspects of the functionality.....assuming they aren't GPL'd anyway. One point I'm not clear on: Could you isolate and separate the GPL parts and the Microsoft parts so there was no confusion?
Only boring people are ever bored.
A "non commercial only" restriction is not just incompatable with the GPL. It is incompatable with the BSD license. It is incompatable with public domain. It is even incompatable with Microsoft's own osf-approved licenses!
I posted a pro MS post at the groklaw article linked above 3 times!!! and each time it was censored! And this is what is known as "open". I even have screenshots of what I wrote (simple post, no expletives or insults) to prove that I did post. I hope /. is more open that that.
My point is that Ms should habe the freedom to choose which oss license to be compatible with. After all there are tons of them out there. GPL3 has been criticzed even by Linus T., so why shd MS go ahead and support it.
I agree with what you said: "One is that problems fade over time. After about 2½ - 3 years it seems that most people forget the bad things and remember only a rosy picture. I'll get back to that. The other quirk is that people quickly get used to a lower level of performance and adjust their expectations and behavior accordingly."
Let's talk on the telephone. My email address: MJennings.USA@ NOT_any_of_THISgmail DOT com