Microsoft Accepts Most EU Demands, But Not Over Source 587
JoeGi writes "Microsoft sent a letter to EU regulators Monday accepting 20 out of the Commission's 26 demands. According to BetaNews, 'The remaining stumbling block to full compliance is source code licensing' as Microsoft is refusing access to open source projects. Microsoft officials told BetaNews they are trying 'to find a way that companies can implement these technologies in code that would get distributed with open source products, but the source code wouldn't be published itself.'"
The article says "accepts"... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The article says "accepts"... (Score:5, Insightful)
The other option is for Microsoft to just stop selling and supporting software in the EU. I honestly believe the EU would recant if MS pulled something like this.
I take it you failed both math and law classes in high school?
No one walks away from 25 billion in profit a year to avoid being fined 1.4 billion. No one with any brains creates a giant new market for their competition. No one in their right mind refuses to comply with the people who direct the army and police.
If Ballmer tried this he'd be fired by the end of the day. If the board of directors all went insane and did not fire him the EU would direct MS Europe to split from their parent company and comply with the orders. If they still refused they'd toss the European director in a prison and tell the next in command to comply.
MS may have some pull but get real.
Re:The article says "accepts"... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The article says "accepts"... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The article says "accepts"... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The article says "accepts"... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The article says "accepts"... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes but India in the 60's, where there was no such thing as a personal computer and maybe an office had ONE computer, compared to today where everyone has at least one computer at home and every office has more computers than employees.
The EU is not like the US, this is a group of COUNTRIES not a group of states. There is going to be an interesting outcome from this to be sure and I doubt it will favour Microsoft.
Europe doesn't have only on
Re:The article says "accepts"... (Score:5, Insightful)
1:) MS could pull out of europe , but if they did EU companys who decide to use MS products would have support from the now independent MSEU and would be paying them for the software
2:) MS could not afford to pull out of europe as giving this market to the competitors would force anyone who wants to do bussiness with the EU to use an open standard thus hurting MS in not just the European market
3:) MS has no option but to comply , They have had the right to apeal which has done no good for them . Companys do not have the rights of citizens in the EU
Re:The article says "accepts"... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you misspelled bribe. Corporate 'citizen' or not, they can still beat drums made of euros and the pols will still shake their booties to the rhythm. Just look how close the software patents fight has been so far and imagine 10x the pressure.
Again, learn thy geography (Score:5, Insightful)
You may find that "Europe" is not a single state, like the USA. It's a helluva lot of states in what's just slightly more than a diplomatic treaty. So who are you proposing to bribe? _All_ of them?
You may also find that the political landscape in Europe is a _lot_ different than in the USA. Politicians here actually have to fight for their votes, rather than just sell themselves openly to the highest bidder. The result is a system which is _far_ less inclined to bend over to a corporation and shaft their voters. Au contraire, if in doubt they'll shaft the corporations for extra votes.
Political majority means a fragile alliance of parties, neither of which has the majority, and all of which are trying to exploit their allies mistakes for their own benefit. Any one party who'd publicly bend over to a monopoly, would quickly find themselves switched from leader of the majority coalition to being _the_ opposition, because all their former allies did the populist thing and formed a coalition without them.
More importantly, that wouldn't even buy a whole term for MS. If the political alliances form the other way around, who's the current leader can change right in the middle of a term.
So what do you propose? That MS bribes every single political party, in every single country in Europe? I'm sure you can see how that's impractical.
Re:The article says "accepts"... (Score:3, Insightful)
I really wonder if the E.U. would find it worth the diplomatic row this would create with the U.S.
Yes. I could see where MS non-compliance could be used as a poker chip in larger negotiations between the EU and the US about WTO grievances, eg. about Airbus gov't subsidies vs Boeing's defense contracts, farming subsidies that both sides have traditionally dealt out, etc.
From my perspective, MS doesn't need to release its source code. It would be unfair to make them reveal a trade secret about how they im
Re:The article says "accepts"... (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think you've thought this through. If MS Europe split from their parent company, they wouldn't have a product. It's only the fact that Microsoft is their parent company that gives them the legal right to produce copies of Microsoft software for sale.
You do realize who writes and enforces those laws right? The governments represented by the EU. The EU courts could easily declare the copyrights and patents of MS to be the property of MS Europe within the EU. For that matter they could just declar
they can't actually do that (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The article says "accepts"... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's my gun. I bought it. I cleaned it. I blew someone's head off with it. I shouldn't be forced to give it to the police.
Face it, Microsoft has broken the law repeatedly. They've used their position to crush competition on multiple occasions in multiple ways. They've outright stolen competitor's ideas and code, they've used their OS to cause errors in competing software, they've obscured their file format so much that each new version of Word must include a miniature version of the previous Word file reader in order to read it. They've used their position as a monopoly seller to try and corrupt Java, to drive Netscape into the ground. They've fed bad web pages intentionally to competing browsers. There is a ton more out there if you want to go digging, I've only scratched the surface.
They made a tool. They abused a tool badly. Reparations were attempted with the company on specific issues. If Microsoft enters an area where they're actively in contempt of court, they can and should have that tool taken away. It would happen to any other company or individual trying to pull the same stunts. If I owned a resturant and a meat factory, and used my meat factory to sneak maggots into the food of my resturant competitors, and then I snubbed my nose at the court and refused their judgement, I'd lose my business. Plain and simple. Why would this be any different?
Personally I think that opening Windows (and forcing it to stay open) without removing their copyright would be far more than enough to allow competitors to create compatible alternatives, giving them a fair footing in an open market.
Oh, and add to that list they've not only falsified court documents, they've falsified evidence they then showed to an open court.
Re:The article says "accepts"... (Score:3, Insightful)
In other words, something their competitiors failed to earn on merit. Don't patronize me. MS may have an almost universally dominant position on the desktop, but there is nothing - NOTHING - stopping superior alternatives from being adopted, if they are sufficiently better.
Re:The article says "accepts"... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the key if they are sufficiently better. Microsoft has ensured through anticompetitive tactics that that threshold is far, far higher than any benefit. Find that BeOS is significantly better a desktop than Windows? (It was, BTW) Well, not only will you not be able to read any of the Word documents they've worked so hard to obfuscate, but you won't be able to read any of the websites whose standards they've co-opted, or run any of the applications whose API's have been intentionally hidden. You won't be able to buy this from a vendor who has one of Microsoft's patently illegal forced exclusivity contracts. And of course you may get sued from a pretty explicitly Microsoft-funded umbrella corporation who claims rights over your OS. Because Microsoft forbade, again illegally, non-Microsoft software to be placed on the desktop after sale, the compatible competitors were forced off, so you can kiss a lot of the open standards goodbye.
A real open market with competition would have a reasonable threshold above which people would switch to a better system. There is no indication this is how the markets around Windows or Microsoft Word or Exchange Server are functioning, and there is plenty of evidence as to why this is the case.
there is nothing - NOTHING - stopping superior alternatives from being adopted, if they are sufficiently better.
Dr Dos was superior to DOS in every way. It was significantly cheaper, faster, more stable, and 100% compatible with MS Dos. Because of this Microsoft re-wrote Windows 3.1 to randomly crash if it was run on top of DrDos. They then promoted "awareness" that DrDos was unstable and would crash Windows 3.1. That's not competing on features, that's using something you sell in one area to irrecoverably damage a competitor's product in an underhanded fashion. They were, BTW, convicted of this.
there is nothing - NOTHING - stopping superior alternatives from being adopted, if they are sufficiently better.
OS2Warp ran Windows applications better than Windows 3.1 did. It multithreaded and multitasked, and was pretty stable... an impressive feat for a Dos-based system. What did Microsoft do? They charged all of their system manufacturers based on how many systems they sold, not how many systems with Windows they sold. In other words, if you were a mixed house and wanted to sell OS2 Warp-based systems, each system you sold with OS2 Warp would cost you one OS2 Warp license you used and one Windows license you didn't and could never use. Thus, Microsoft used their position very directly to prevent competitors from getting on shelves, in a fashion completely illegal. They were, BTW, convicted of this.
there is nothing - NOTHING - stopping superior alternatives from being adopted, if they are sufficiently better.
You can't engage in illegal anticompetitive behaviors and still represent something as an even playing field. Period. I'm sorry if this sounds patronizing to you, but it's a pretty easy concept. If there was a way I could explain it that was complicated and difficult I would.
Not all Monopolies are evil or behave in an anticompetitive fashion. While Intel's hands aren't squeaky clean, it did decide to largely compete based upon power and marketing when rivals appeared. Google has a near-monopoly on search activities, and it hasn't abused that position. I can only think of one example of outright sabotage of interoperability with a competitor's parts from Shimano. But with Microsoft the list of abuses is very, very long. They even did a lot of anticompetitive stuff that failed, like bundling Messenger into every copy of Windows, refusing to allow it to be uninstalled, and if it found that you did uninstall it, the bloody OS would reinstall it. Or their attempts to corrupt Java (which, BTW, they were convicted of). Or their attempts to patent-en
Re:The article says "accepts"... (Score:3, Insightful)
You are free to compete with my restaurant by opening your own. If I repeatedly burn down your restaurant and those of my other competitors, it just means that I am the best restauranteur, and all of you would-be competitors are incompetent.
Re:The article says "accepts"... (Score:4, Funny)
Dude, that was the standard behavior, even with MS-DOS !
Re:The article says "accepts"... (Score:3, Insightful)
I call BS on that. They have a larger market share because they have coerced hardware distributors to pre-package PCs with Windows. Most consumers don't want to stump up the extra cash for Apple PCs, so end up with Windows. After a few software purchases, they are effectively locked into continued dependence on Windows to run their software.
I know this because I am in this position, at home & at work. I think MS Word is horrible, clunky, diffic
Re:The article says "accepts"... (Score:3, Funny)
You are wrong WRONG WRONG!
You certainly can explain it in a way that is more complicated and difficult. I suggest you try using a thesaurus. Use more commas, lots and lots of commas. Try writing it in Cantonese. And if all else fail
Re:The article says "accepts"... (Score:3, Insightful)
I can see where you're going with this, but there is a difference. If you continue the story, the police don't go and give your gun to somebody else, even another police officer. It will be locked away and perhaps destroyed. In the same way I don't think MS source should be given away to others even if their intentions are to do good with it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no Microsoft fanbo
Re:The article says "accepts"... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's really the crux of how Microsoft goes from being
Re:The article says "accepts"... (Score:4, Insightful)
They don't have to. They can decide not to sell their software in the EU.
Governments create through laws economic environments that they think will make them (and their population) successful. Different governments strike the balance between good for the people and good for the rich at different points - too good for the people and their corporations can't compete. Too good for the corporations and standards of living drop as wealth accumulates in the hands of a few elite.
The US is well known the world over for leaning heavily toward the rich, and relying on their corporations to go forth and extract wealth from other nations and bring it home. It has done well for them from an economic perspective so far. You can't, however, blame a government for either striking the balance more in favour of their people than the US (given that just about every other government in the world does also) or for attempting to protect themselves from the abnormally-empowered corporations of the US.
Do the people of the EU need MS software? Will it really benefit them? Well, the government of the EU has decided that it will - as long as MS changes the terms it's attempting to force Europe's people to agree to before using it.
The EU is doing what's best for its people. That is what it is supposed to do. If it did otherwise, why, it would risk being a farce.
The fact that it is not doing what's best for you does not warrant such an attack.
Re:The article says "accepts"... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, it would prove that they are a monopoly. It would also prove that there isn't anything anyone can do about it.
Re:The article says "accepts"... (Score:5, Insightful)
So nope, ain't gonna happen. They'll play along, they may play dirty, but they have no choice but to stay in the game.
Re:The article says "accepts"... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The article says "accepts"... (Score:3, Insightful)
Too bad, having Microsoft being pushed out is as likely as a cold day in hell. And the devils get paid to keep the heating on.
Re:The article says "accepts"... (Score:5, Insightful)
> who "forced" MS out would be with their
> constituency being companies, government agencies
> and private individuals being forced to switch to
> an alternative?
I realise we're talking about a highly unlikely set of events here.
However, I don't see that it's necessarily such a huge issue. The EU isn't the US; MS isn't an EU company. Money spent on MS products leaves the EU and heads to the US.
If MS was banned, you can be dead sure any number of EU-based alternative companies would fall over themselves to fill the space. Sure, 100% file compatibility may not be achieved, but the negative of that would be overwhelmingly addressed by the fact that some/most/all of the money spent on software would remain in the EU.
Any politician who "forced" MS out might well be applauded by EU individuals, governments and companies on this basis.
Re:The article says "accepts"... (Score:3, Interesting)
It would beinteresting to see somethign like this happen. It would probably entail a team of CS professors deconstructing it and attempting to match the source code well enough to suite the
Re:The article says "accepts"... (Score:4, Informative)
I agree, but no one is asking them to open their source, only to allow open-source projects to use their API's fairly.
Re:The article says "accepts"... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The article says "accepts"... (Score:5, Informative)
That part wouldn't be a problem. Trade and Competition policy are EC competencies. IOW, the Commission has already been given the authority to act and doesn't need permission from the member states.
Re:The article says "accepts"... (Score:4, Insightful)
But Microsoft still does not seem to have learned their lesson and continues to defy the will of a court. The next course of action by the EU is probably to step up fines for non-compliance, going to seisure of corporate assets of Microsoft in Europe if they refuse to pay the fines. If that is not enough any Microsoft officers caught in Europe will be detained. You get the idea.
And prove they're an Monopoly? (Score:2)
No, they'll do what they need to do to wiggle out, and sneak back into their old ways as fast as they can, even if it means more lawsuits. They don't care about those things, they just need to keep the Monopoly going on.
Re:And prove they're a Monopoly? (Score:2)
Re:The article says "accepts"... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The article says "accepts"... (Score:2)
What's realistically going to happen is enough wining and dining and veiled threats that the EU will just pull off a bit on the issue, one of those thre
Re:The article says "accepts"... (Score:5, Insightful)
That might be so, but the stock price will fall right through the floor after the very first quarter with such "results". The management will be all fired next morning after that.
Re:The article says "accepts"... (Score:4, Funny)
Great! (Score:2, Interesting)
Unfortunately, this isn't going to happen as the market is lucrative in Europe and there's NO WAY that Microsoft would give it up.
Re:Great! (Score:3, Informative)
Can't do it.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Accepting demands (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Accepting demands (Score:4, Insightful)
Or MS can say "The fines for noncompliance will be lower than the cost of damage to our business if we do comply. So we're going to eat the fines." Even if that were true, eventually the EU would either crank up the fines or simply bar MS from selling Windows as-is, in which case we're back to option 1.
Re:Accepting demands (Score:5, Insightful)
[ They can take their ball and go home. ]
Yes, but they still would not be complying with the court order and would be subject to severe penalties. They could sell 4 copies of the new product and then go but then the cat would be out of the bag already.
[ MS would threaten it, ]
How to really offend a European court. They are not in the US, they have to respect the court or they will suffer. They do not have political clout behind them anymore. In fact if they threaten to do something like that it could easily be seen as contempt.
[ "The fines for noncompliance will be lower than the cost of damage to our business if we do comply. So we're going to eat the fines." ]
This would constitute contempt and could result in a lot more than just a higher fine. The person that makes the decision not to comply can be taken to court and can be sent to prison. I think that no high paid executive wants to do that. The fine for non-compliance is a fine for dragging your feet, now they are no longer dragging their feet, they have decided to not comply they enter a whole new game. I do not know exactly what has been said but if they said 'no' they are incredibly stupid and liable to real penalties. They should say 'we are going to, but we are having real difficulty and need more time. Maybe if the court could possibly help us by changing things a little we would be able to sort this out sooner'. Any refusal is bad but to ask for help is good.
Re:Accepting demands (Score:4, Insightful)
You can't violate a country's laws, get caught, and decide to go home instead of facing the penalties. Even US courts would recognize that. It's not a question of whether or not they want to make this deal. It's a question of how hard can the international court system come down on them if they try to hide from justice. Considering how difficult it would be fore MS to actually hide, they're far better off trying to derail the court proceedings.
Re:Accepting demands (Score:5, Insightful)
Another possibility is that MS could stop selling Windows in Europe and Europe could respond by nationalizing the copyright on all Microsoft, Inc properties and releasing them into the public domain. Meaning they wouldn't need Microsoft to sell windows. Hey, look at that trade surplus with the U.S. abruptly swell.
Might be a bit difficult to pull off technically, but at some point the EU is going to do something if it wants to be considered a group of sovereign countries with their own laws, as opposed to just a funny kind of U.S. territory to which the constitutional protections on human rights don't apply. Cave on this and they'll be walked all over for the rest of their existence.
Re:Accepting demands (Score:5, Insightful)
I love how this "solution" is bandied about. Is this really the precedent you want to set? IE, a European country suddenly is doing "too well" in the US, so they just nationalized? Europeans love to talk tough about how their software industry is just going to _pulverize_ the US's, but if everyone just keeps ignoring the other guy's copright, there won't be much industry left.
_Real people_ own Microsoft. It's not like it's just some shadowy group of owners plotting evil against the world. If you're an American with _any_ money in the stock market (which includes such things as 401k's, mutual funds, IRAs, etc), you most likely own some Microsoft stock. The political repercussions of hitting Microsoft like this are FAR greater than most Europeans on here apparently imagine. Five rich guys don't amount to much. Fify million middle-class Joes are a rather substantial voting bloc, and the last thing you want for them to start voting is "SCREW THE EU!"
The least of such sanctions would be from the WTO. Are you just going to ignore those, proving, in reality, you don't give a fig about keeping your word than Microsoft? That all this talk of "international rules" is really just doublespeak for organized mob rule?
In fact, it could lead to a full out economic embargo - you can't just take what you want when it becomes convienient in the civilized world, because people will simply stop giving. If the EU does indeed have a trade surplus, you just shot your own foot making some sort of idiotic statement about the EU.
-Erwos
...wtf? (Score:2, Insightful)
Because not being allowed to distribute code is totally opensource.
Really, wtf are these people on?
Re:...wtf? (Score:5, Informative)
The crux of the arguement (Score:3, Interesting)
The only way to write fully interoperable code is to have access to the source code, says the EU. Microsoft counters with a system that allows access to *some* code, and it's very expensive to gain access to it.
This would cut most Open Source projects out because they don't have the bankroll to pay for these fees, and even if they did most of them would be unwilling to pay for Microsoft code they can only look at.
Many commercial fir
MSOSS (Score:5, Funny)
so-long (Score:4, Insightful)
Eu doesn't need microsoft - microsoft needs them so I would tell them to fsck off if they don't comply with everything. after all you are their customers and being Microsoft they should be wanting to meet the customers demands - isn't this the reason they implement their crap - you know like put out the next IE7 - cause their customers asked them for it.
This is a symbiotic relationship (Score:3, Insightful)
Many people besides the programming community and the politicians are watching this fight as it will define how the other major oligopalistic corporations will deal with the EU bureaucrats in the future.
Microsoft needs the EU enforcement apparatice to maintain its monopoly and the European Union bureaucracy runs on Microsoft's software.
This whole showdown is a 'tempest
Is this news anymore? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is this news anymore? (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope Europeans can stop complaining about our corrupt government, and Americans can stop whining about European governments in general, and we can all collectively recognize the lameness of basically all big world powers.
Re:Is this news anymore? (Score:5, Interesting)
Are you kidding me? What, pray tell, convinced you that the EU was the shining city on the hill that split from all known history? I always figured it was a bunch of people trying to broker power for their own benefit, that power being granted in turn for keeping some decorum of law and order. Maybe I was the cynic?
I'm hardly an anachist, but show me the government that hasn't fallen and I'll show you a young government.
I hope Europeans can stop complaining about our corrupt government, and Americans can stop whining about European governments in general, and we can all collectively recognize the lameness of basically all big world powers.
And then what? We'll all enroll in Philosophy 101 and get stoned? Ya know, they don't call the Empire an empire for nothing. Enjoy whatever moral superiority you suppose you have. I'll enjoy my days as part of the Empire, and afterwards, we'll see who had a better time.
Re:Is this news anymore? (Score:3, Funny)
You mean you actually believed those old propaganda videos? Do you know that in those films antimatter is a code word for puppies?
When Geordie referred to the "antimatter containment units" he was referring to the kennels where puppies were forced to run on treadmills to power the ship. When the puppies died from exhaustion they were liquefied and fed intravenously to the rest of the puppies.
Learn thy geography (Score:4, Insightful)
1. "EU government" really means something fundamentally different than "USA government". No, I'm not gonna bash the USA or anything. The EU just isn't one country. The U stands for UNION, and it's a union of independent nations.
What passes for "EU government" or "EU agency" is just a shifty diplomatic treaty between countries that follow their own interests and have their own population to impress. If you bribe, say, a German bureaucrat in an EU agency, you'll have all the other EU countries screaming bloody murder, if only to push their own bureaucrat in his/her place.
(Which also answers the usual "bet the EU wouldn't do that to their own companies" moans: there isn't such a thing as an EU company. If the EU failed to punish, say, a German monopoly, it would have France, Italy, Belgium, Holland, etc, screaming bloody murder.)
So there isn't just one government to bribe. By the time you went through all the governments to bribe, one of them would have the next election.
2. Speaking of elections, most EU countries have more interesting politics. They don't have two parties, both cattering to the corporations, for a start. Your average European's country's election is "won" by an unstable alliance of parties, neither of which usually has a majority on its own.
It's a system which works precisely _because_ politicians are, well, politicians. (Said in all possible contempt.) It's a system where, in fact, they make populism and demagogy work.
The "winner" doesn't get 4 years in which they can just rake in bribes and catter to the higher bidder with impunity, and the opposition doesn't just wait for their turn to rake in the bribes with impunity. There isn't any such thing as having an almost guaranteed turn at it: lose enough popularity and you can turn from an alliance leader to a minor member of someone else's alliance in the next elections. And even if you "won", the more other parties you need in a coalition for a majority, the more concessions you'll have to make to get them to support you, so better not end up too low.
And more importantly, even if you won, alliances can be formed the other way around at any moment, if that is perceived as the more populist thing to do for those small parties in your coalition. If the "winning" party has, say, 41% of the places in the parliament, they might at any moment find themselves switched from leading a majority coalition of parties, to being the opposition because everyone else made a 59% coalition against them. The small members of a coalition really have nothing to lose from switching sides like that: they'll end up members of the majority coalition either way, so they might as well just pick the side that looks more popular.
Bribery does exist in Europe's politics, but it's usually a lot more subtle than that, and offers more subtle benefits. You won't see a politician just openly being bought by a cartel and lobbying full time for them, or a party just openly forcing the DOJ to bend over for a corporation. That's the kind of thing that's plain political suicide down here, one way or the other: if you don't get kicked out by your party to save face, that party becomes the opposition very quickly as alliances form the other way around.
So basically short of bribing every single political party in Europe, it's not easy for MS to just "give some money to the government" and get a free ride out. And bribing every single political party would be a pretty costly exercise even for MS.
No problem (Score:5, Funny)
Why force them to license the source? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why force them to license the source? (Score:2, Insightful)
Except this is not the RIAA or MPAA, this is Microsoft and the EU. Nothing has taken place in America hence the Recording Industry Association of America and the Motion Picture Association of America have no say in what goes on.
Re:Why force them to license the source? (Score:2)
Re:Why force them to license the source? (Score:3, Interesting)
Apologies for the pun (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd give anything to see the EU tell Microsoft to follow all 26 or face a continent-wide ban. Can you imagine any single one of us, after being found guilty of something, picking and choosing our punishments in a court of law?
Maybe I'm confused (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Maybe I'm confused (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:Maybe I'm confused (Score:4, Informative)
From an earlier, more accurate, article:
It ordered Microsoft to share data protocols with competitors, including open source software companies.
PROTOCOLS. NOT SOURCE CODE.
Re:Maybe I'm confused (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see why Microsoft should have to turn over their source code without any kind of compensation. They did develop the product, and it seems to me that they should be able to profit from it. In my opinion the demands of the EU are in this case unreasonable.
It's because they broke the law. It's a punishment that attempts to correct some of the damage they did. It's like this a guy mugs and old lady takes the cash in her purse and bets it all on a number in roulette. He wins big then the cops nab him. The judge just said, "the money he won goes to charity as part of his punishment."
Re:Maybe I'm confused (Score:3, Informative)
There have been entire magazines whose editorial policy was to publish articles describing how the various MS implemenations of APIs and protocols deviated from the official external MS documentation. Perhaps MS has cleaned up their internal situation over the past few years, but various insiders have been quoted in the past saying things that suggest that even MS considers the source code the only r
Re:Maybe I'm confused (Score:3, Insightful)
Aside from the fact that they aren't required to turn over source, this is like asking "why can't that (American) guy buy a gun? It's a constitutional right!" while ignoring the fact that he's a convicted felon and is still out on parole. MS was convicted of being a monopoly, and as such must comply with the law regardless of what you think companies should be allowed to do.
Code? (Score:5, Interesting)
Other people's code isn't necessarily good documentation and usually won't drop into another project's tree anyway. Why is there such emphasis on code? Should we be talking about specifications?
What about (Score:5, Interesting)
If they would just take away Microsoft's virtual monopoly on the office document format it would make it easier for users to switch to open alternatives.
I have always said that switching people to open software on Windows is the first step to switching people to open software period.
To me the lack of forced open document formats and standards compliance is the only thing keeping open software from grabbing large market share from Microsoft.
Re:What about (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What about (Score:3, Insightful)
AP Wire Text (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft says it will meet most EU demands
By ALLISON LINN
AP BUSINESS WRITER
Microsoft Corp. says it will meet most demands by European Union regulators on making software blueprints available to competitors, including lowering licensing fees, but is seeking further talks on some issues.
Microsoft said it delivered a letter to EU regulators on Monday detailing its intentions.
The EU last month threatened new fines if Microsoft doesn't make it easier and cheaper for competitors to see the blueprints, known as source code.
Brad Smith, Microsoft's top lawyer, said the Redmond, Wash.-based company told the European Union it isn't opposed to licensing the code to open-source developers as long as it's assured that its intellectual property will be safeguarded.
Open-source programs led by the Linux operating system pose perhaps the most serious threat to Microsoft because their code is freely shared, while Microsoft closely guards its source code.
Click Here
Smith said Microsoft also wants clarification on whether concerns that view its source code can develop and distribute software outside of Europe.
EU spokesman Jonathan Todd said Monday afternoon that he could not yet confirm that the Commission received Microsoft's latest letter, but said "We have received a letter in response" to our questions that Microsoft sent before Easter.
He said the EU was "studying it carefully." He gave no further comment on the content of Microsoft's letter or on Monday's announcement
The EU compelled Microsoft, in a March 2004 antitrust ruling in which it fined the company 497 million euros ($640 million dollars), to share the source code with competitors who make server software so their products can better communicate with Windows-powered computers.
European regulators also ordered Microsoft to produce a Windows version minus its multimedia player to provide a more level playing field for competitors such as RealNetworks Inc.
Microsoft has complied with that order but says it will only make the software available in Europe. Dow Jones Newswires reported last week that Dell Inc., a leading computer maker, would not offer the stripped-down Windows version as an option.
Company officials would not provide The Associated Press with a copy of the letter they submitted to the EU on Monday.
But they listed these changes that they said they had accepted in the server source code reviewing procedure:
-Microsoft will customize licenses for developers who want to pick and choose from source code rather than buying a preset package.
-The company will give competitors a price break on reviewing source code and more time to decide whether they want to license it - charging 500 euros ($645) a day for up to eight days instead of allowing a maximum of two days at 3,850 euros ($4,965) for the first day or 5,390 euros ($6,950) for two days.
Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler said the company was working on a new set of prices for licenses to address the commission's concerns that previously proposed fees of $100 to $600 (77 euros to 465 euros) per server were too high.
Desler would not elaborate on any details of the new royalty fee structure.
Andy Gavil, a Howard University law professor who is co-writing a book on Microsoft's antitrust battles, says the company has good reason to try to elongate the process, especially given its plans to appeal the March 2004 order.
Microsoft has been ordered to comply with the ruling even as it seeks an appeal.
Gavil said Microsoft is concerned about losing the freedom to build new features into its operating systems and that sharing too much with competitors will weaken its business.
"In a sense, they're trying to define a software philosophy and a business strategy," Gavil said.
Smith emphatically denied that the company has any interest in slowing down the proces
Waiting.. (Score:2, Funny)
Open for Negotiation (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, it's the EU's move now (Score:3, Interesting)
TFA is wrong! Not about source code! (Score:5, Insightful)
As is often the case, the press is completely misreporting the issue. The EU never demanded that Microsoft release their own source code. What MSFT is required to do is license their network protocols and provide sufficient documentation to licensees so they can create their own implementations. A similar condition was part of the US antitrust case.
The license that MSFT offered is (1) expensive, and (2) specifically prevents licensees from releasing the source code to their own implementations. The EU is mostly upset about the cost, and is therefore completely missing the point. The only effective remedy would be to require that MSFT publish the protocol specs and allow anybody (e.g. the SAMBA team) to implement them.
Some would say that such a compulsory license amounts to the EU stealing MSFT's intellectual property. Bullshit! Do you believe that making them pay a fine is stealing their money? You can oppose the whole concept of antitrust regulation on Libertarian grounds, but that battle was fought and lost, the argument is over, and antitrust is settled law. The EU has the right to set antitrust rules and punish the violators.
Re:TFA is wrong! Not about source code! (Score:3, Interesting)
Anti-trust suits are really the government suing another part of itself.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
O. J. Microsoft (Score:5, Funny)
opening the source would be admitting... (Score:3, Insightful)
not their source code, other source code (Score:5, Insightful)
It sounds like Microsoft is not even talking about access to their source code, they are talking about whether open source projects are permitted to distribute their own code necessary for interoperating with Microsoft code in open source form.
In different words, Microsoft is trying to keep "confidential" exactly what the commission is requiring them to make public.
Furthermore, since the only group of people they are trying to impose restrictions on is open source (since binary-only vendors have full access under the agreement already), this is a direct attack by Microsoft on open source.
Well, it's good to see that Microsoft is validating open source through their action. Let's hope that the EU doesn't let them get away with this.
Re:not their source code, other source code (Score:4, Informative)
Who is John Galt? (Score:3, Funny)
European: "Well, but you see friend, this is necessary for the people. We're doing it for the people, after all."
American: "Yeah, I get that, but aren't you afraid they'll just withdraw from the market?"
European: "Ha! They wouldn't dare lose such a large piece of our thriving market. Why, why, that's 25 billion a year! Besides, do you really think our government would allow it? We could force them to stay after all. We could nationalize their entire business! What would they do then? Huh?"
American: "I dunno... *shrugs* Who is John Galt?"
Foolish Microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)
- Comply and nothing painful happens.
- Don't comply and be in for a world of pain.
There are *no* alternatives to these options.
There is *no* negociation possible.
This is the EU, not the US.
what am i missing? (Score:4, Insightful)
MS: Of course we respect your decision and intend to comply fully. Well, almost fully. You see, some of the measures you have ordered would tend to interfere with our monopoly and our capacity to abuse it. We are in a position to negotiate the terms of your punishment, because.. Well, because all your base are belong to us! EU customers are so completely locked in our proprietary formats that they will revolt if you deny them our products!
This is like Don Corleone telling the court: yes, your honour, it's true, I am a mafia don. And I accept your punishment, except if it is too severe I will naturally have to use my position as criminal mastermind and have you whacked.
What am I missing?
Re:Microsoft *might* be b/w a rock & hard plac (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft *might* be b/w a rock & hard plac (Score:5, Informative)
forcing MS to license any of their software under the GPL seems grossly anti-capitalistic.
No country in the world has a straight capitalism. The reason is that in an unmanaged capitalism, eventually all the money gravitates to one place. One monopoly is leveraged into another then another and eventually there is only one company. Monopolies break all the advantages offered by capitalism. They remove all incentive for innovation, supply an demand, and for making the customer happy.
Allowing MS to leverage one monopoly into multiple monopolies breaks capitalism, which is why monopolies have to follow special rules. Get it?
Where to begin... (Score:4, Insightful)
1) BSD is open source.
2) Anything released under BSD can be forked and re-released under GPL.
3) It's absolutely possible to "integrate" software in Linux without it being GPL.
Probably missed some things... no doubt others will pick them up
Re:Microsoft *might* be b/w a rock & hard plac (Score:5, Interesting)
As far as I can see, in theory, full and accurate specifications of the APIs and protocols ought to be sufficient to allow interoperability and prevent Microsoft from having an unfair advantage over competitors. The problem is that nobody trusts Microsoft to publish full and honest specs and adhere to them. They are known for having undocumented interfaces and for departing from standards. Forcing them to publish the source would let others determine the actual APIs and protocols by inspection, and we'd know whether the source they published was real because its behavior could be compared with that of Microsoft's binaries. However, this doesn't require that Microsoft license its source under the GPL. People can perfectly well implement Microsoft's APIs and protocols with their own code. What it does require, other than publishing the software with terms that do not prohibit use of the information gleaned in GPL-ed software, is freedom from patents.
Insofar as Microsoft has been convicted of monopolistic behavior, I don't think it has a choice if publishing source code under the GPL is the only way of adressing its improper behavior. It's not like something that is insufficiently in line with capitalism is "cruel and unusual punishment". If Microsoft really doesn't want to publish its source, it seems to me that the only thing to do is to force them to stand behind their specs by imposing significant penalties for differences in behavior between their software and the specs. This could even be a way of diverting the efforts of some crackers - finding discrepancies would be a thrill, and could even be remunerative if a percentage of the fine were awarded as a bounty.
Not Microsoft's code, yours (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft *might* be b/w a rock & hard plac (Score:3, Insightful)
For instance:
- On the Windows platform itself, there's a number of open source apps which can't do everything MS apps can because the MS apps are using undocumented API's.
- non-Windows media players can't make use of extensions to AVI/WMA and DRM because of closed MS specifications.
It would be a big win for open source if MS just released full documentation of all of their API's - it would
Wrong. Noone asked MS to GPL any of their code (Score:3, Insightful)
That's all its about. APIs and protocol specs. No MS source code has to be involved, other than a few _header_ files. Or not even those, in the case of protocols.
So MS thinks it's smart and comes up with a scheme that says "sure, you can get our specs if you sign this license sa
Re:Can't Really blame MS (Score:4, Interesting)
in the USA -- it only took a regime change for
MSFT to be able to dictate their own punishment.
No doubt, MSFT is playing this same waiting
game in the EU.
Politicians are pretty much alike the whole
world over; money talks, and more money talks
louder. American politicians may find (to their
consternation) that they were bought far too
cheaply compared to their brethern in the EU.
Re:API == Code (Score:4, Insightful)
So let them pick what option they want to do, being expensive if not really a concern of the EU. Remember this is not because they are nice guys but imposed because they broke the law in EU.
Re:API == Code (Score:3, Informative)
It's true that pre-implementation specs are often way off, but it is certainly not impossible to do a reasonable job of writing up them up. I've used systems to which I didn't have source that worked very much as the manuals said they did. I wrote a good bit of code on HP Bobcats using the man pages for HP-UX, Starbase graphics, and whatever their window system (the interrupt-based one, not X) was called. I don't recall ever encountering a discrepancy. And software was hardly HP's strength.
Re:I don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
They aren't. They are expected to publish honest and accurate descriptions of their APIs in such a way that open source can use them.
They are twisting the words to get the support of the terminally ignorant.