Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Government The Courts News

Microsoft Sues EU 272

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the battlegrounds-masquerading-as-courts dept.
mormop writes "News.com is reporting that Microsoft is hauling the European Commission into court." The case is in response to "imposed sanctions against the software giant, including a record fine of about $621 million (497 million euro) in March 2004, in a case that also covered the bundling of Microsoft's Media Player with Windows, but the company has not entirely carried them out."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Sues EU More

Microsoft Sues EU

Comments Filter:

  • Inflammatory summary (Score:5, Informative)

    by gbulmash ( 688770 ) * <semi_famous@noSpAM.yahoo.com> on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @04:03PM (#13503575) Homepage Journal
    The Slashdot summary seems to be deceptive. According to TFA, the case is "specifically concerning the issue of broad licenses for the source code of communications protocols." To sum it up more succinctly, Microsoft was ordered to open up protocols for print and file sharing and some security tasks to competitors so they could better integrate their products with MSFT server products. Microsoft got this softened to include a provision that the parties they opened up the protocols to could not publish them. Of course, this left all FOSS groups swinging in the wind because they couldn't agree to that provision and remain open source.

    Microsoft agreed to let a court rule on the matter and provide more specific guidance, so the case is really about whether these protocols will be available to FOSS projects which could then publish their code that works with the protocols. TFA does not say that the case reaches any broade than that or touches on the $621 million penalties at all.

    So what the case really seems to be about is not the whole EU judgement or Microsoft "hauling the EU into court" (an inflammatory phrasing), but Microsoft trying to "open up" the protocols as ordered, yet keep them closed to a certain extent by requiring an NDA from anyone who got access to them.

    So, is the Slashdot summary a bit overreaching in its description of Microsoft's actions? IMO, yes. Does it make what Microsoft is doing right? IMO, no. I believe that these protocols are very basic ones and essential to interoperability. By denying them to FOSS projects, they hobble those projects in their ability to compete on an even playing field. The idea behind anti-trust sanctions is to make the playing field more even.

    Opening these protocols to FOSS projects is not likely to cause Microsoft irreparable harm. The only danger I could imagine is that opening them will expose a megaplex of holes in the protocols and we'll see a rush of exploits that make the worst Microsoft security issue in its history seem like a minor incident. Then it will harm Microsoft because it will cost them billions in sales as people migrate to non-Microsoft server software to escape the invasion of worms and other exploits poking through those holes.

    • Deeper pockets than Microsoft? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      This time, Microsoft has blundered. The only entity that has more cash than Microsoft is a national or quasi-national government. The European Union can outspend Microsoft any day.

      • Fuck that. I dont want my taxes going to some lawyer to play legal games with MS. We are putting a European army together now, this is probably as good time to test that it works. Lets try fighting instead of legal wrangling.

        • Re:Deeper pockets than Microsoft? (Score:4, Informative)

          by EvilMonkeySlayer ( 826044 ) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @04:36PM (#13503848) Journal
          Yeah, right.. European army.
          This is a fallacy, not one single power in Europe has agreed to such a thing and it's doubtful they ever will. At most you're looking at closer military cooperation in the future akin to NATO, however for the most part all the cooperation pieces are in place.

          Pretty much every single European nation balks at the idea of a European army, there are so many barriers and nightmares as to make it next to impossible.

          First you've got the basic language barrier, then you've got the equipment barrier. You may think that everybody in western europe has standardised on certain types of ammunition but think again, as an example standard 5.56mm bullets for the British SA-80 (L85A2) actually cause jamming problems, so much so that the SA-80 now using its own type of 5.56mm ammunition.
          You've also got vehicles and national pride issues, everybody is going to want to use their tanks or their APC's for the European army. So, again you'll have people bickering over which percentage of a nations make of tank is used rather than the best one for the job, you'll also have the issues of ammunition again. Western European tanks use 120mm rounds, East European tanks use 125mm rounds adding to logistical headaches.

          It goes on and on, it's safe to say there will never be a European army. The closest we'll ever see is something akin to NATO and a rapid reaction force.
        • We are putting a European army together now, this is probably as good time to test that it works. Lets try fighting instead of legal wrangling.

          I can see the dispatches now:

          "Reports are coming in that Microsoft's rapid assault has caught the Polish Army off guard and put them into full retreat. Vladimir Putin expressed little concern over a suspicious buildup of Microsoft tanks along the Russian border, citing assurances from Bill Gates that Microsoft would honor the recently signed Microsoft-Russia nona

          • And the Americans report that although disaster relief following the invasion is as good as could possibly be expected, the real responsiblity lies with the local governments, who forgot to inform the President of the invasion in a timely matter; documents signed by the President indicating his knowledge of the impending decimation of the Apple headquarters notwithstanding. Not that they would play a "blame game", of course. And it's Clinton's fault, ultimately, senior adminstration officials say in an off-
    • So my understanding is that if somebody asks, MS must open the protocols and provide info. What's the point of an NDA if anyone else could get the disclosure from Microsoft? Who are you hiding it from?
      • It keeps open source from using the information protected by those NDA's. Why? Because if they implement code into their open source projects based on information they gain by agreeing to the NDA, then they cannot publish the source code (and thereby have it as open source) without essentially violating the NDA.
        • Indeed. I understand this point. But the idea of the NDA in general seems odd. If anyone can view the source by asking (with an NDA) wouldn't that make the only ones who *couldn't* use the code be open-sourced projects?

          Basically, a clause that serves only to detriment OSS...

    • Re:Inflammatory summary (Score:5, Insightful)

      by hungrygrue ( 872970 ) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @04:20PM (#13503722) Homepage
      Opening these protocols to FOSS projects is not likely to cause Microsoft irreparable harm. The only danger I could imagine is that opening them will expose a megaplex of holes in the protocols and we'll see a rush of exploits that make the worst Microsoft security issue in its history seem like a minor incident. Then it will harm Microsoft because it will cost them billions in sales as people migrate to non-Microsoft server software to escape the invasion of worms and other exploits poking through those holes.
      It seems likely that that is very close to the argument that Microsoft will be using. They can't, on one hand, point to Linux as their primary competition in the operating systems market as proof that they don't hold a monopoly and, on the other hand, specifically try to prevent FOSS from being able to compete while allowing any and all corporate competitors access to these protocols. That just won't fly. The security argument, though, has at some legitimacy. There is a real concearn there - Their code and design has been a secret for a very long time, and they have been tacking on ever more kludges while trying to maintain as much backward compatibility as possible. The number of potential security holes is hard to immagine.

      • Re:Inflammatory summary (Score:5, Insightful)

        by einhverfr ( 238914 ) <chris.traversNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @04:40PM (#13503877) Homepage Journal
        I actually don't see that as very likely. The bigger issue is that Microsoft *depends* on secrecy and lock-in to hold onto their market in the face of less expensive competition. So yes, opening up the protocols will cause them irreparable harm.

        Personally I think that this is a red herring. Projects like Samba are becomming increasingly adept at reverse engineering Microsoft's proprietary protocols. And although I think that Microsoft is trying to dampen these resources with NDA's etc. I think that it will only slow things down slightly. In short, it is too little too late.

        • Re:Inflammatory summary (Score:5, Insightful)

          by rgmoore ( 133276 ) * <glandauer@charter.net> on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @05:23PM (#13504206) Homepage
          I actually don't see that as very likely. The bigger issue is that Microsoft *depends* on secrecy and lock-in to hold onto their market in the face of less expensive competition. So yes, opening up the protocols will cause them irreparable harm.

          That isn't irreprable harm, though; that's just having to face the market. Being forced to compete in an actual market is supposed to be the whole point of anti-trust law. It would be ridiculous to find that Microsoft was engaged in anticompetitive behavior but not actually force them to compete as part of the judgment.

      • Code and design not secret though (Score:4, Insightful)

        by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) * on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @05:35PM (#13504294)
        Their code and design has been a secret for a very long time

        Actually, they have not - the groups that are writing exploits have long ago dissasembled the code for these things and know exactly how they work. That's where the exploits come from.

        So by continuing to keep these protocols secret the only people they are preventing from obtaining this data are the ones that need it for ligimate needs, and thus would be less included to want to have to reverse engineer the whole system. The people writing exploits will probably find it a little more convienient knowing the specs, but it will not tell them much they don't already know.
    • The Slashdot summary seems to be deceptive.

      I, for one, am appalled at this strange lapse in what is usually pristine summarizing and editing. Unacceptable!
    • Microsoft's interoperability plans are: "We want to support as much stuff from other as we can, but we DON'T want anyone to support our own stuff"

      They REALLY don't want to open those protocols.

    • Re:Inflammatory summary (Score:4, Insightful)

      by PhYrE2k2 ( 806396 ) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @06:59PM (#13504853)
      The only danger I could imagine is that opening them will expose a megaplex of holes in the protocols and we'll see a rush of exploits that make the worst Microsoft security issue in its history seem like a minor incident. Then it will harm Microsoft because it will cost them billions in sales as people migrate to non-Microsoft server software to escape the invasion of worms and other exploits poking through those holes.


      The only thing needing to be opened is the protocol specs, and not the code itself behind it. I'd highly doubt that there are really that many holes in the protocol itself, as it's fairly basic I imagine (some sort of unique ID that needs to be valid on both systems, various info, and a data packet- maybe some encoding methods).

      I know M$ has a really bad history, but lets give them some credit to putting more than 10 minutes of thought into something as crucial to their software as the file&print sharing protocol.

      -M

  • For DnDers (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @04:06PM (#13503600)
    You now have a concrete example of "lawful evil", for anyone who asks.

    Someone using bureaucracy to bring the entire process down to a slow enough crawl that by the time it's resolved, it's no longer relevant, thus allowing the company to get away with whatever they want.

    While twirling their long waxed moustaches.
    • Welcome to the future of law.

      Get pulled over for driving while intoxicated and fined? sue the court that fined you.

      Lose that case? sue that court too

      etc ad nauseum

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Meh, I wouldn't pick any alignment that's not at least half-neutral to align yourself with. Consider:

        Lawful Evil: We do the wrong thing on purpose, bacause it benefits someone. Screw the rest.

        Chaotic Good: We do the wrong thing by accident or excuse our evil acts by redefining morality. No one benefits, but we can at least whine that it's not our fault.

        Chaotic Evil: I'm charmingly straightforward in my ethics, but can't see past the end of my nose.

        Lawful Good: Paladins are this alignment. Anyone
        • So go for neutral: it's the only alignment set that actually stands some chance of benefitting society rather than destroying the universe.

          Yeah, but OTOH paladins can wield Carsomyr against the Lawful Evil Gelatinous Executives, and some of them come with an inherent 50% lawsuit resistance.

      • Perhaps some kindly soul her will do D&D monster stats for "The Ballmer Beast" or "Bad Billy the Evil Pixie"...

        Well, I got the picture to use in the Monster Manual [monkeymethods.org]
    • This happens all the time, its how the big boys get away with having to conform to the laws.

      Its sad really. ( that they get away with it, time after time )
    • This is not a new tactic for MSFT, either, although they can (perhaps) lay claim to that prior art. The SUN vs MSFT lawsuit regarding Java is but one shining example. The DoJ vs MSFT lawsuit regarding monopoly status was drawn out until a change of venue^H^H^H^H^Hadministration.

      While MSFT does not hold a patent on FUD, they do (apparently) hold the business practices patent on "embrace, extend, extinguish".

      I hope the the EU reams MSFT "a new one" in court. If MSFT truly wanted to be interoperable with ot

  • Microsoft Scared of Open Source? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Nerd Systems ( 912027 ) * <{ben} {at} {nerdsystems.com}> on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @04:06PM (#13503602) Homepage
    It looks like these days, that Microsoft is getting a little scared of the Open Source movement... especially having to share how their server software's communication protocols work. Information of this nature is easily available in the Linux community, yet Microsoft seems to have a very tight leash on their communication protocols.

    I wonder what the real underlying reason to all of this legal wrangling is. Is Microsoft really that concerned by Open Source Software putting them out of business, or are they more concerned about the general public seeing how flawed and inefficient their communication protocols are?

    It is all good either way to me, I'll stick with my servers all running Linux, with the communication protocols of them freely able to be examined and understood. I also know that my Linux server can handle way more connections and traffic then a Windows server ever could imagine...

    It is only a matter of time, before Linux totally takes over the server market, making such legal battles a thing of the past...

    Microsoft, stop being a big bully, and start sharing with the little guys...

    • ...yet Microsoft seems to have a very tight leash on their communication protocols.

      It's just business. Microsoft aren't alone in this sort of thing. Do you think IBM open everything of theirs to their competitors?

      ...or are they more concerned about the general public seeing how flawed and inefficient their communication protocols are?

      Geez, where'd you pull that one from? What has this got to do with anything?

      I also know that my Linux server can handle way more connections and traffic then a Windows serve

      • Re:Microsoft Scared of Open Source? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 ) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @04:57PM (#13503997)

        It's just business. Microsoft aren't alone in this sort of thing. Do you think IBM open everything of theirs to their competitors?

        For the most part actually, yes they do. IBM has been pretty good about working with open standards for quite a while.

        What has this got to do with anything?

        It seems like a valid point to me. If MS does not want people to be able to see their protocols they must have a reason. Maybe that reason is to stop interoperability or maybe it is because they are full of security holes or even stolen code. It is perfectly reasonable to speculate as to their motives.

        I can't see how it would be a good thing. Replacing one monopoly with another is hardly sensible is it, regardless of how that new monopoly behaves?

        You can't have a monopoly on Linux. Thats is most of the point. As open source it will never be locked to one vendor. With an MS monopoly customers are subject to the whims of MS. They pay what MS wants or go without and they are restricted to the features MS is willing to allow. With Linux if one vendor charges too much, you can go with a different vendor and prices reflect the fact that there is competition. If you want functionality added/fixed you can do it yourself or hire anyone you want to do it. You seem to have a very skewed idea of what a monopoly is.

        • For the most part actually, yes they do. IBM has been pretty good about working with open standards for quite a while.

          Okay, maybe I picked a poor example. My point was, there are countless software vendors out there that don't open their specs/protocols. Whether you think this is good or bad is another discussion, but picking on Microsoft alone is hardly fair.

          It seems like a valid point to me. If MS does not want people to be able to see their protocols they must have a reason. Maybe that reason is to stop
          • > If Linux were to take over the server market
            > entirely, everyone would be using much the same
            > technologies and software.

            There are multiple implementations of just about anything you'd want to run on a Linux server. Unlike Microsoft, Free Software encourages choice.

            And if you don't like Linux try one of the BSDs.
            • It looks like I'm not going to win this argument, but just before I go to bed I'll respond to this last one.

              There are multiple implementations of just about anything you'd want to run on a Linux server. Unlike Microsoft, Free Software encourages choice.

              Yes, absolutely, and for the most part they all interoperate fine, but they're all fundamentally using the same technology - they're all using the same protocols etc. Microsoft approaches it all entirely differently. Whats the equivalent of AD domains in Linu
          • "Okay, maybe I picked a poor example. My point was, there are countless software vendors out there that don't open their specs/protocols. Whether you think this is good or bad is another discussion, but picking on Microsoft alone is hardly fair."

            Picking on microsoft????? Where have been. This is punishment for criminal activity by Microsoft. When a rapist gets sentenced to jail is it picking on that person? MS is being punished for it's criminal behavior.

            "Yes, if you wanted something different you could wri
          • My point was, there are countless software vendors out there that don't open their specs/protocols.

            The difference is that those software vendors have not been convicted of illegal monopoly actions in a court of law. Microsoft has, in multiple jurisdictions.

            Maybe monopoly was too strong a word.

            There's this widespread misconception that "monopoly" means "it is the most popular product" or "it is the only popular product". This is not the case. "Monopoly", in the sense people talk about when they talk about

      • Replacing one monopoly with another is hardly sensible is it

        "Linux" is not a monopoly and can never be .. there are DOZENS if not hundreds of companies supplying Linux, working on Linux, supporting Linux, improving Linux etc., and due to the Linux, it will always be this way. Always.

        The GPL levels all uneven market entry barriers - anyone can get in to the market, and everyone can come in at exactly the same level as existing players, because the entire codebase of each competitor is available.

      • It's just business. Microsoft aren't alone in this sort of thing. Do you think IBM open everything of theirs to their competitors?

        Well, there's Eclipse the leading IDE. Yes, they opened the plugin spec for that.

        Or there's IBM using open Grid protocols [serverworldmagazine.com] for grid computing projects.

        The mistake you are making is in thinking it's "Just Business". That never is quite true as the overall character of businesses is defined by the people that run them. Do you think Oracle or Apple would operate the same way witho

    • Re:Microsoft Scared of Open Source? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by garcia ( 6573 ) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @04:22PM (#13503742)
      It looks like these days, that Microsoft is getting a little scared of the Open Source movement... especially having to share how their server software's communication protocols work. Information of this nature is easily available in the Linux community, yet Microsoft seems to have a very tight leash on their communication protocols.

      These days? I see by your UID that you've not been around on Slashdot all that long (at least w/your current username) but Microsoft has been fearing OSS for years. This is no new development.

      Of course they are keeping tight controls on their communications protocols (they always did - SMB). They were never about to open their document formats or networking protocols to the public. Why should they? Their software is only marginally better than any other alternative out there -- it's just that they are the ones that interoperate with it the best because it's their format!

      It is only a matter of time, before Linux totally takes over the server market, making such legal battles a thing of the past...

      Welcome to 1998. This is exactly the rhetoric being tossed around then. We then moved to Linux taking over the desktop. It's 2005. While I see significant strides on both sides of that coin I don't see us "taking over the market" in either.

      Windows will likely always exist. Linux will always be there as well but they certainly won't amass the domination that Microsoft has now.
      • I see by your UID that you've not been around on Slashdot all that long (at least w/your current username)

        A UID is not that much.

        I've been reading Slashdot since it was "Chips & Dips" in Rob Malda's dorm room at Hope college, and my UID is in the 200k range. I simply didn't create an account until whenever I did.
    • how flawed and inefficient their communication protocols are

      Back in the days of Win95 and OS/2 (v4), I had a application which scanned a directory structure and gathered statistics. I had compiled the source to target both OS/2 and DOS (two executables, one for each OS). It was a command line app. At the time, we had a network traffic analyzer which I could see from my workstation.

      Running the app in Win95 (MS-DOS) used about 20% more bandwidth than running the app under OS/2. Both trails were run from the s

  • Next up (Score:2, Funny)

    by robyannetta ( 820243 ) *
    Microsoft vs Earth
    Microsoft vs The Martians
    Microsoft vs Santa Claus
    Microsoft vs Mike Nelson, Crow, Tom Servo
    Microsoft vs ... Oh, the hell with it.

  • 2005 War Begins (Score:4, Funny)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 ) * on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @04:10PM (#13503641) Homepage Journal
    Counsel: We get signal.
    European Commission: What!
    Counsel: Main screen turn on.
    European Commission: It's you!!
    Gates: How are you gentlemen!!
    Gates: All your base are belong to us!
    • I was going to mod this topic but I have a question

      How is this even REMOTELY funny? maybe it was fun like 5 years ago, but all this crap (Simpsons, futurama, family guy, whatever) gets modded up every damn time.

      WHY!?!

      • Re:2005 War Begins (Score:2, Offtopic)

        by xoboots ( 683791 )
        You are right, that wasn't funny. Still, I think there is a big difference between something like that "joke" and the various Simpsons references that one is apt to see. A Simpsons reference (or similar) is almost invariably given as a verbatim quote used in context. They aren't really jokes -- they are supporting evidence. The Simpsons are typically quoted today in the same way that Shakespeare or Kierkegaard once were. They provide a common point of reference.

        On the other hand, these "all your base", "in

  • Talk About Duh ? (Score:5, Funny)

    by burdicda ( 145830 ) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @04:11PM (#13503650)
    Microsoft suing the EU in a European Courtroom...
    Whos.....they must be smokin some of their software

    • Re:Talk About Duh ? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by cpghost ( 719344 )

      Microsoft suing the EU in a European Courtroom...

      It's not unusual for EU institutions to loose lawsuits before european courts. That's why they too employ an army of lawyers.

  • How? (Score:5, Funny)

    by abrotman ( 323016 ) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @04:19PM (#13503716)
    How in the hell does Bill Gates walk around with such enormous balls?

    • Re:How? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Alien Being ( 18488 ) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @04:30PM (#13503800)
      Steve: There is a pestilence upon this land. Nothing is sacred. Even those who carry balls are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.

      Bill: Did you say 'balls'?

      Steve: Yes. Balls are my trade. I am a Ballmer. My name is 'Steven the Ballmer'. I arrange, support, and transport balls.
    • At least it should be easier for EU to kick him in the nuts this time :D

  • On the surface (Score:3, Interesting)

    by kerohazel ( 913211 ) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @04:33PM (#13503821) Homepage
    It's interesting because, on the surface, Microsoft appears to be actually loosening up a bit about its fistful of secrets. "Why don't we set down some general rules about who can see our code, and let the courts decide on a case-by-case basis?"

    It almost had me fooled, too. Then I remembered that Microsoft, with its army of lawyers, would surely turn any lawsuit with a small F/OSS group into a circus. It seems MS doesn't even have to push through its agenda these days, all it has to do is agree to looser terms and then throw money at it to tighten it further.

    Oh, and first /. post. :)

  • Access to what documentation exactly? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @05:20PM (#13504189)
    Has anyone considered that perhaps they simply don't have docs which are complete and accurate enough to allow a reliable reimplementation? I mean, how old is SMB/CIFS? How many kludges has it got tacked on? Where do you get the idea that, at this point, anyone could write a spec for that protocol that accurately and completely describes how it behaves short of just forking over the code?

    From a PR standpoint, having this come out would be bad. But with an NDA, no one will ever be able to tell the story.

  • A Lie (Score:5, Insightful)

    by John Hasler ( 414242 ) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @05:41PM (#13504336) Homepage
    > ...broad licenses for the source code of
    > communications protocols...

    That's a lie. Publication of protocols does not require the publication of any source code whatsoever. Same goes for file formats.
  • Being told you "have to" interoperate with Open Source is not trivial.
    • They are being told no such thing.
    • But, whether they like it or not, being told to interoperate is the fruit of thier own success. Microsoft is legally classified as a monopoly, and so it is governments responsibility to stand over them to ensure that innovation is not stifled.

      Regarding BitKeeper, paying customers recieve a product that is extremely good at inter-operating, and BitMover always went out of their way to assist open source developers export their data in a variety of ways.

      The objection was about an open source client bein

  • Dealing with the unknown.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Conor Turton ( 639827 ) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @06:29PM (#13504645)
    Microsoft is dealing with something they've not come across before. Not only have they not got the protection of a government who does everything it can to look after it's own but the officials can't be bought off like Washington and the EU has enough power to stand up to US pressure - it's not like we're depending on US financial aid.
    • ``the officials can't be bought off like Washington and the EU has enough power to stand up to US pressure''

      Oh come on. The EU gets some things right, but I don't believe for a second that there is no corruption. How do you think the bill to legalize all manner of software patents ended up being voted on at a meeting for agriculture and fisheries? It's not because politicians thought the bill was in everybodies best interest.

      I also don't think there is too much power to stand up to the US - not with all mem
      • The EU invests much more power in unelected bureaucrats (and much less in elected officials) than the US system. Thus it's far, far easier to corrupt because one only has to buy out a member once, not every four years, and blatantly corrupt individuals are far harder to replace.

        However, the EU also has lots of little voices, any one of whom can speak up and block or delay legislation. When the little guys can speak up it's an excellent system (c.f. Poland on software patents), but often deals are done bet

  • Links (Score:2)

    by Alphix ( 33559 )
    The filing with the ECJ is here [eu.int] and previous documents can be found here [eu.int].

    Note that FSF Europe (among others) is listed as a supporting party to the commission in some of the earlier documents which is quite amusing.
  • MS is starting to sound like the US government.
  • The European Union screwed up: forcing Microsoft to publish protocols to only proprietary vendors is just about the worst outcome possible. Furthermore, source code for portions of the system is nearly useless.

    Microsoft should instead be forced to publish openly and without restrictions specifications (but not source code) for all communications protocols and file formats used by their software, with steep penalties if their software fails to comply with those protocols and formats.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Why should we subsidize intellectual curiosity?" -Ronald Reagan

Close