EU Rejects Microsoft Royalty Proposal

pallmall1 writes "According to MSNBC, The Financial Times has reported that the EU is going to drastically reduce or even eliminate Microsoft's proposed royalties on interoperability information required to be released by the EU's antitrust ruling issued three years ago. According to a confidential EU document, "Microsoft will be forced to hand over to rivals what the group claims is sensitive and valuable technical information about its Windows operating system for next to no compensation...". Even Neil Barrett, the expert picked by both Microsoft and the EU to oversee Microsoft's compliance with the 2004 ruling, says a zero percent royalty would be 'better.'"

Royalty

I am not a native English speaker and I read the subject as if Microsoft proposed some kind of royal title to EU bureaucrats or something and they refused.

As for royalty payments, yes, Microsoft is disclosing interoperability protocols and other who want to used should pay, but... Microsoft's protocols are not stat-of-art technology, it is an implementation of ideas that are commonly used in IT industry. NFS is in essence the same thing as CIFS but with different protocol convention.

Thus, Microsoft's hiding interface details is not protection of intellectual property but prevention for other vendors to come along and intercommunicate.

Think of post office. Street addresses are open. Pen, paper and envelops are freely available from different vendors. What if US Post Office would demand a royalty from private currier services and taxi drivers for using of Street naming and house numbering system?

Uhm, aren't they the criminals here?

I want Microsoft's lawyers. I could get charged with being a bank robber, then make a deal where I agree to only rob a small bit from banks, and then I'd demand compensation for loss of earnings.

Re:Uhm, aren't they the criminals here?

I want Microsoft's lawyers. I could get charged with being a bank robber, then make a deal where I agree to only rob a small bit from banks, and then I'd demand compensation for loss of earnings.

It's worse than that... and it's not funny any more.

MS has been found guilty of abusing it's monopoly position in the Windows desktop market... and the EU has determined that it continues this abuse on other related product and service markets. Now, to introduce meaningful competition, the EU stipulates that MS has to reveal secretive protocols, which are the 'tools' for extending the monopoly into other markets.

5% server market revenues would be a very high barrier for competitors, according to the EU Inspectors approved by Microsoft themselves... they feel it should be close to 0%. They estimate that at 5%, it could take more than 7 years for meaningful competition. Coming to your robbing-the-bank analogy, it's like MS has a monopoly in bank-robbery the details and methods of which they will not divulge... except for 5% of their revenues. Note that he daylight robbery is still going on!

Re:Uhm, aren't they the criminals here?

If we're going into bank comparisons here, I see it more like the Microsoft bank charging their customers a huge fee to handle their money, and other banks having to pay a large percentage of All their money transfers (not just transfers to and from Microsoft) to interact with the Microsoft bank.
And no-one uses the other banks because their bosses and family are stuck on the Microsoft bank.

Re:Uhm, aren't they the criminals here?

MS is guilty as charged by a legally constituted court, the court's penalty is to hand over their IP. WTF has socialism got to do with it?

Re:Uhm, aren't they the criminals here?

'' The EU is basically demanding MS to hand over their IP for free. ''

Actually, they are not. What MS is supposed to hand over for free is in no way intellectual property.

Lets say for some reason a product needs to transmit two numbers A and B. They could be transmitted in the order A, B or B, A. They could be transmitted as decimal numbers in text format, or binary. If binary, they could be transmitted as 8, 16, 24 or 32 bits in various byte orderings. All these variations are completely arbitrary and cannot be considered to have any intellectual value. However, for compatibility a competitor needs to know which of these arbitrary variations a product uses.

This information could at most be considered a trade secret. In this case, however, keeping that secret a secret would be illegal, therefore it is not a trade secret.

There is no reason at all why Microsoft should get any compensation for this information.

HRH William Gates III

> EU Rejects Microsoft Royalty Proposal

Now this time Bill Gates really has gone too far: King Gates III! The Brits would never buy it! On the other hand we could see increased coverage of Microsoft in the British Tabloid Press and I'd like to see Steve Balmer try to throw a throne.

Why US did not want to supervise this market?

Respect to EU for coming up with deserved enforcing of market quality. Silly, how weak or non-existant were efforts of US institutions to do something along that. Netscape or Real vs MS cases were irrelevant by the time they even started, not to say they didn't solve much for the industry and market as such. US once had thriving software and computing sector. While there is some action in HW, persuasive "partnering" of MS with makers of most consumer products led to minimal inventiveness in SW. While Vista is mostly surprising by how much of it can be so similar to Mac OS/X, it was shocking to see Office 2007 - what, innovation?!

Go, Europe!

It's true!

I saw it on Slashdot from this guy samzenpus who said this guy pallmall1 saw on MSNBC that the Financial Times reported it. So it's gotta be true.

Interoperability

And why should MS allow others to interoperate with their email or other protocols?

Before MS, IBM ruled the computing world, with numerous other incompatible operating systems such as DEC/TOPS, DEC/VAX, Univac OS/1100, HP RTOS, etc thrown into the mix.

None of these OS's were interoperable, nor could mail even be easily exchanged between them. All were proprietary.

Yet now everyone is demanding that MS open up, sans compensation. Just because MS is very successful? IBM ruled both the hardware and software market back then, in a way that MS today doesn't even come close. Yet no one forced them to open up their protocols (although the US government did try, and lost).

Yet an upstart MS was able to dethrone IBM from both the hardware and software crowns. The current European situation seems instigated by companies unable to aggressively compete. Government regulation is hardly ever the solution to innovation.

Re:Interoperability

Yet now everyone is demanding that MS open up, sans compensation. Just because MS is very successful?

Well, because they're a monopoly and they've been abuisng that position.

IBM ruled both the hardware and software market back then, in a way that MS today doesn't even come close. Yet no one forced them to open up their protocols (although the US government did try, and lost).

And if the US government won, then something similar would have happened. Microsoft lost for whatever different legal reasons.

Yet an upstart MS was able to dethrone IBM from both the hardware and software crowns.

No they didn't. IBM made mainframes. Microsoft made desktop operating systems. Completely different market. The current European situation seems instigated by companies unable to aggressively compete. Government regulation is hardly ever the solution to innovation.

That is the whole point! There's no way they can aggressively compete because Microsoft abuse their monopoly!

Re:Interoperability

No quite - all of these organisations did indeed have incompatible protocols - because they invented them cuncurrently, and prior to that there there had been no protocols. However, they released sufficient information for interchange products to be developed.

Microsoft OTOH developed incompatible protocols after there were perfectly good ones in use, and then forced them onto the world using illegal tactics.

Most people can see a difference here

I don't think this will help...

So MS releases the specs for various protocols they happen to be using right now. I can easily see MS changing these protocols as part of a service pack to XP/Vista and suddenly it's two more years for the revised specs to be made available. But this would just be IMHO based on how they've 'updated' the Windows file sharing protocol over the years and how nicely they play with public standards [namely the standard with a twist].

What about the EU fines ?

It is evident that the money is not the real issue for M$ here. If it was they would have complied with the EU order a long time ago rather than pay 2 million Euros per day. The real issue is preventing the competition from competing fairly - in particular Open Source.

Note that M$ gets the benefits of using other protocols for free, eg: the Open System protocols (described in POSIX); the Internet protocols (described in RFCs); Open Source implemented stuff (just read the code)[**].

It could get quite interesting if the Antigua spat with the USA over gambling gets worse [[The WTO order has been ignored by the USA]]. The result will be that Antigua will be allowed to take retaliation - which means ignoring protection on USA goods. If Antigua was to get a copy of the M$ protocols specification it could release it free to use by everyone - legally.

[**] Yes it is quite legal for M$ to read Open Source code, deduce the protocols and write closed source software - just as long as they don't copy the code. This is as it should be.

Aieee

This just keeps getting better.

I might be falling in love with the EU. If they could do something about the RIAA I'd be in nirvana.

Im LOVIN this Eu

at this rate, im going to bear children from all commissioners. and thats despite im straight male. you go figure.

Royalties?

If it's a percentage, I see a great opportunity for someone with money to spare to have a lot of fun giving stuff away.

Just a fight among big companies

"Three Microsoft rivals that have reviewed the group's pricing scheme extensively - understood to be IBM, Sun and Oracle - come to the same conclusion: "The prices charged by Microsoft are prohibitive and would not allow them to develop products that would be viable from a business perspective," the Commission charge sheet says."

It looks like these 3 companies won't have to worry about emerging competition from MS in the server space. The EU can sleep peacefully knowing that prices won't drop.

Hey,why not zero pct royalty on iPod's too!

Those Europeans really have it down! If you can't compete in a modern economy then REGULATE! It's brilliant. Why pay for something when you can make it free! Nest up, iTunes! After that? Who knows. For those of you who might think I'm some sort of right-wing idiot, anti-government, anti-regulation of any type...I'm not. I just donated $500 each to Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton. I'm a member of Common Cause. But that doesn't mean that I think the EU has the slightest fucking clue about how the software industry works. They should keep the fuck out.

MS's reign will end sooner if we leave them alone

Let them maintain their juggernaut of proprietary systems and high prices. If you can't sub out a piece without replacing the entire system, then you now have an incentive to replace the entire system. But there aren't any replacements available because they have a monopoly!? I admit that one issue with the free market is that it doesn't always offer a timely solution, but I solemnly believe that we'd all be better off down the line if we don't sand off a couple of the offending barbs, and leave them as incentives for the market to fix. What if MS forced a patch on all their windows products that caused them to crash if someone tried to run Firefox, or anything besides IE? This would be a much more direct anti-competitive tactic than putting an IE icon on the desktop or interweaving it throughout windows. I use Firefox more than any other piece of software on my computer, I would have a huge incentive to switch to anything else. But there are no other satisfactory options? Maybe it wouldn't happen in a month, or maybe even 4 months, but do you seriously doubt that the free market couldn't provide me an OS alternative eventually? Regulate away that "illegal anti-competitive patch" and you regulate away incentive to provide alternatives. It's always tempting to fix an immediate problem (supposed monopoly for instance) with regulation, but let the problems fester and I think entrepreneurs will find a better solution in the long run. I suppose there's a good chance the alternative could take 5 years to develop, so maybe regulation is the only short term solution. I just think we're shooting ourselves in the foot in that case.

Microsoft

Fuck 'em...

Put them out of business - they're a fucking state-supported monopoly anyway (state-supported because Bush wouldn't enforce their conviction and they use contract law to maintain their monopoly.)

Tough shit they get no royalties.

So fuck 'em.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

Hold on there cowboy...
I'm pretty sure you won't have much problem finding or getting the same information from F/OSS software!

Just because MS wants to suck the money out of every pocket they can, use monopolistic practices, mafia like business tactics and other ills often mentioned on /. doesn't mean that they deserve that money.

If MS really wanted to be nice, they could be. They don't. They *WANT* to keep sucking all the money they can from all the pockets that they can, and will use any and all tactics that they can get away with to continue to do so.

For me, that is just business. There are worse businesses in this world. It's also why I choose F/OSS now without even thinking about what I might lose by not having MS products in my household. Whatever the alternative is, I feel better knowing that I won't be fscked in a couple years to get an upgrade or patch.

Getting paid for doing something is one thing, being forced to stop monopolistic practices is another.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

What intellectual property? It's not copyrights - MS is not required to give code. It's not patents and not trademarks. What EU wants is the info on how the code works, so that other software vendors could make software that properly interoperates with the products of a monopolist that Microsoft is. This is only fair.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

And wouldnt even be necessary if they had complied with standards in the first place.
The EU should force microsoft to comply with published standards, or if necessary extend and publish the extensions to those standards (and propose the standard be updated accordingly).

Re:I want to get paid!!!

Very true. Of course M$ learned from the (old) IBM that one of the best ways to protect your market was to ignore standards, or undermine them, whilst publicly supporting them. Not too sure about the 'extend and publish' part - that's one way that M$ undermines existing standards - by 'extending' them, (making everything else incompatible). http://www.consortiuminfo.org/ [consortiuminfo.org] has lots of info on this

Re:I want to get paid!!!

What standards ? In this area of connecting server and client software Microsoft is setting a lot of the standards.

It's very hard to say that something is a standard unless you publish it... an unpublished standard is very similar to a few other of my favorites...
"World Famous in Ireland"
"Slightly Pregnant"
"The dumbest thing I've ever heard... Today"

What it seems like to me, is that Microsoft is trying to get the following system in place (Bad Car Analogy Warning)
You buy a new SUV, and need new tires, you have to go back to the Microsoft Dealer, because your new "MS MudRover" Only take tires with a diameter of 17.428 inches and a 12 inch width... You also can't get new rims, becuase the MS MudRover uses a proprietary 19 Pin/lugnut system to attach the rum to the axel, oh yeah, and they have a patent on said 19 Pin system, as well as making 17.428Inch diameter tires with a 19 inch width... In short, Vendor Lock In, becuase nothing else works

Re:I want to get paid!!!

From: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_tuncom/major/mtc -00029523.htm [usdoj.gov]

For example, Kerberos is an industry standard for encryption, in which certain
fields are reserved for optional use. Microsoft, however, has used one of those
fields to produce its own proprietary version of the standard. In itself, this
is unobjectionable.

Microsoft, however, has gone one step further: it has manipulated its operating
systems and middleware so that they will use and accept only the Microsoft
version of the Kerberos standard.(16) This is diametrically contrary to the
purpose for which standards, even with optional fields, are developed. Optional
fields are included in standards to enable firms to add information to a
message. Ordinarily, if an optional field is used in creating standard messages,
those messages can still be sent and received among all products that comply
with the standard. In such cases, the information included in the optional field
may simply be ignored. Optional fields are never, however, intended to enable a
firm -- i.e., Microsoft -- to subvert the standard and preclude its widespread
usage.(17)

Thus, by polluting industry standards, such as Java and Kerberos (among others),
Microsoft can further impede the use and development of competing middleware.
Any calls encrypted with Kerberos sent by Microsoft Windows can be read only by
other Microsoft Middleware and not by Novell's middleware. Similarly, Novell's
middleware cannot send calls encrypted with Kerberos (the industry standard),
because Windows will reject them. ...

16. The CCIA explains that "[w]hile the Kerberos Version 5 Microsoft uses
for their security services is a standard, the way they have implemented
Kerberos is not a standard and renders it nearly inoperable with any other
implementation." CCIA White Paper, supra, at 24.

17. Not content with Microsoft's corruption of the Kerberos standard, Microsoft
has filed for a patent on its proprietary version. Consequently, not only will
Microsoft products fail to interoperate with non-Microsoft products (because of
the modification), but Microsoft will not allow anyone else to use its version
unless they purchase a license from Microsoft.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

While the interlectual property is theirs, and legally constituted court has decided that as punishment for breaking the law they have to hand it over possibly for no cost. When you break the law you don't get to decided what your punishment is, and the courts are empowered to seize your assets as part of the punishement.

You missunderstand.

Microsoft is not being asked to give over anything remotely considered intellectual property by the EU.

They are being asked to document their API's so that they may not use their illegal monopoly to prevent interoperability from competitors and therefore maintain their monopoly.

They can do this without giving anything of value in the legal sense and certainly can achieve this without ever showing a single line of source code, although worked examples certainly would help with understanding.

They are an illegal company performing illegal acts and as such punitive controls must be enforced to ensure a fair playing field, period.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

Remember, this is a court order, it's part of a penalty they get for breaking the law. The court decides the terms. Originally they were allowed to pick a reasonable fee themselves (IIRC) but if the court decides they abused that and set an unreasonable fee, well I would certainly expect them to order the info to be free.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

The problem is, though, that you can have the best product in the world, if it's not compatible with existing technology it's worthless. You could create the perpetuum mobile but if the energy it produces is not compatible with the ways we have to harness and use it, it's practically useless.

This might be too strong an example, since with technology THAT superior people would go out of their way to find some way to use the energy, but I think you get my point. Compatibility is what makes or breaks a product, no matter how good the product itself is.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

Yes yes, we've heard it all before. Why not just set up a cronjob (Sorry, Scheduled Task) to post this inacurate and uneducated drivel? It could save a lot of time and effort: you wouldn't even need to spend time ignoring the replies that keep pointing out how wrong you are!

don't start or remain a tech company in Europe.

Phillips, Nokia, Sony Ericson, Siemans and the hundreds of other small and medium technology companies all agree with you.

P.S: Remind me, which country convicted Microsoft of abusing it's monopoly position first?

Re:I want to get paid!!!

And fair enough.
The EU is protecting the EU. They could make a law banning Windows all together and it would be LAW.

They want other companies to be able to produce something that resembles competition. Ie an o/s that can run windows executables. And hey Governments can do what they want with their own laws because they have their own sovereignty. Just because you Americans allow yourselves to be bribed by every corporation you have doesn't mean every other government is.

I think that what they are doing is a great step forward for interoperability.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

The EU is protecting the EU.

True - Except the EU makes tries to enforce its policies worldwide, not just within the EU.

So when the EU finally forces Microsoft out completely, that will count as their choice. But when American companies can't sell "Feta" or "Cheddar" cheese, in America, we have a problem.

The EU just serves to further prove that all sufficiently-large organizations will abuse the power of their position (and I don't say that as though the US hasn't done the same for the last half-century).

Just another Boeing-vs-Airbus dispute, except Microsoft has no European analogue. And that pisses the EU off far, far more than anything Microsoft itself could ever do.


I think that what they are doing is a great step forward for interoperability.

Interoperability with what? I had to explain to a coworker just last week (after she made a v8-specific PDF that no one could open)... If you just tell Acrobat to always save in v4 compatible mode, everyone in the world can read it. Same goes for MS Office. Just save it Word/Excel 98 mode, and plenty of other programs can open it.

Or to put this another way, for a recent contracting job, I wrote a niche-industry software package that outputs a totally opaque closed format. I make the only program that does anything even remotely like it. Should I expect the EU to start threatening me when the first copy ships to somewhere in the EU later this month for "stifling local competition"? I do so hope so, as I have no assets there that they can threaten, and gleefully look forward to telling them to go pound sand...


Someone else already said it, but I'll repeat: EU policies send a very, very clear message - Don't set up shop in the EU.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

So when the EU finally forces Microsoft out completely, that will count as their choice. But when American companies can't sell "Feta" or "Cheddar" cheese, in America, we have a problem.

Well, cheddar isn't a protected name - it's regarded as generic. Although seeing the artificially coloured, yellow slices of chewy pap that passes for "cheddar" in the US, you might wish it was protected so at least you'd know you'd be getting a decent piece of cheese! Similarly, in Europe when you get feta cheese or parma ham you know you're getting a decent product and not a cheap rip-off. In the US, you could get feta cheese sprayed from a can and parma ham that has never seen a pig ;-)

Who would want to?

It all makes sense now!

Microsoft made Vista to release it's 'secrets' to its rivals! That way, once its all integrated everywhere, they can come out with Microsoft Winux! No annoying security messages, a great command line that works with the Gui, services that are tailored to the average user, and total customization!

Seriously, who in their right mind would want to integrate aspects of Windows? Sure it's a platform that millions are using, but with their continued mistakes, they won't have a foothold for much longer. Anyone who seriously is looking to engineer a better operating system should simply turn to the brilliant resources of the Open Source community.

Re:Who would want to?

Seriously, who in their right mind would want to integrate aspects of Windows? Sure it's a platform that millions are using, but with their continued mistakes, they won't have a foothold for much longer.

You have answered your own question. The people that integrate aspects of Windows are the people who need to inter operate with the Windows users. Those Windows users occupy 98% of the universe. Personally; I would like to use Thunderbird ( on Linux, Solaris, *BSD or Windows) at work but it doesn't play nice with all the (proprietary) toys that come with Exchange. What about being part of a Windows Domain natively? Let's extend this just a little farther: How about being able to choose your word processor or spreadsheet tool of choice and not having to be concerned about file formats.

Now, with open protocols and open standards; everyone can compete on a level playing field. Let the companies create true value to the products (IE: like management features, better interface, etc) instead of playing games by changing the protocol / formats and making forced upgrades for the users.

Re:Who would want to?

Seriously, who in their right mind would want to integrate aspects of Windows?

Think like the SAMBA guys.
They want to interoperate with windows, not integrate aspects of it into other platforms. That capability is always a plus, at least it makes a transition out of windows smooth.

Re:Royalties

Well one would hope that 5.95% of nothing is... :-)

Re:EU = still playing where it doesn't belong

How does not sharing MS File/Sharing specs harm competition again?

lack of interoperability, otherwise known as the tactic "vendor lock-in".

whether we like it or not, windows is currently the standard and if someone wants to compete (which lets that whole "free market" thing work), they need to be compatible with windows and with microsoft's formats (.doc, etc.)

Re:EU = still playing where it doesn't belong

If said company is holding a monopoly, then yes.

Monopolies are, by their very definition, the bane of free market. Should you be able to hold a monopoly over a certain area of the market, the free market starts to crumble because it cannot employ its power.

In a truely free market someone could come along with a new and better idea and that new/better idea would sell better because the product is better. That's the theory behind it all. Competition amongst producers, with the consumer being the decider which product is best, giving the producers of "good" products their money, so they thrive while the ones with the "bad" products perish.

This does not work in the presence of a monopoly. MS can produce the worst software and they would still be the top sellers. Simply because companies have invested a large amount of money into their line of products.

If MS can hold its specs under cover, companies would be forced to keep buying from MS, even if their software is inferior, because competing software would not be compatible. Which, in turn, contradicts what free market dictates as the doctrine of the best product being the best selling one.

IP == "free market?!" WTF?!??!

Now, let me get this straight - simply taking a companies' intellectual property with next-to-no compensation is being argued on "free market" grounds? Mind-boggling.

Mind-boggling? No, what's really mind-boggling is that we're in such a Bizarro would that people somehow think it isn't "free market!"

Here's a newsflash: so-called "intellectual property" is a government-granted monopoly. It is an artificial construct of law. It is the opposite of a "free market!"

In a truly free market, so-called "intellectual property" would not exist. Everyone would be free to make whatever widgets they wanted, without having to worry about whether some whiny ass claimed to think of the idea first. That's a "free market!"

Re:EU = still playing where it doesn't belong

Can you really be that naive?

I will give you one simple example ( even though I think you are a troll ) and let you take it from there.

MAPI ( the Mail API ) - This was a specified API to allow different programs to interact with e-mail. It was supposed to allow any program to send whatever their work prodcut was, along as an attachement to an e-mail, and to generaly interact with any e-mail system installed on the computer.

When MAPI was 1st published it had a well defined set of interfaces and API calls that were documented and reliable. This was all well and good until well the competition started writing better e-mail systems. These were all fully MAPI complient and worked very well.

As we all know by now, MicroSoft cannot handle competition. So what did Microsoft do? What they always do, they changed the API and then didn't tell anyone. So now all kinds of MAPI complient applications started breaking, well except theirs of course, since they had all the documentation and the rest of the word didn't.

This is the basic Microsoft pattern. If someone comes up with something better then they have and it relies on an API controlled by them, they simply change it and then dont tell anyone they did so, thus stopping the competitions product from looking so good or even working at all

That, by defintion, is anti-competative behaviour.

Re:EU = still playing where it doesn't belong

Said companies didn't enter in a contract with MS to guaranty 100% compatibility for their MAPI enabled apps.

Which they should not have to, as MAPI is (supposedly) an open standard.

MS' doing what they can to keep backwards compability. That's the only guaranty MS can give.

It's spelled "guarantee". And that would be great, if they were trying to do that -- instead of deliberately trying to break the competition in subtle ways.

They have done this before. Take msn.com, which had a ridiculous typo in its stylesheet -- in a version of the stylesheet only shown to Opera users.

Coincidence? Maybe, but consider that this never, EVER happens the other way around -- that is, msn.com never has typos that break stuff in Internet Explorer, and their own API changes never break a Microsoft product.

Even if MS have access to a few undocumented MAPI calls, it's still their right to have those undocumented.

No, it is not. It is blatantly anticompetitive behavior. Using their complete dominance in the Operating System business to support their Email Client business -- or even their Office Suite business -- is not just unfair, it's actually illegal.

MS doesn't owe me, you nor anyone else nothing.

You don't have a clue about antitrust laws, then.

Maybe it's different in Britain, but here, this kind of shit is considered illegal and wrong -- except, I suppose, for those who have contributed a large amount of money to political campaigns. (Notice how the antitrust suit against MS was dropped as soon as Bush got elected -- and notice how much MS (and MS executives) contributed to the Bush 2000 campaign.)

Re:I want to get paid!!!

It's seems greedy to think they can get something without some compensation. The anti-trust suit was expected but concessions are concessions.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

Yes, yes and yes - if these companies are deemed monopolies.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

The iPod should publish it's interfaces so that people can make competing iPod software.

Yes

Sony should be forced to reveal all of the hardware interfaces in the PS/3 so that people can make their own add-on devices.

Yes

Google should be forced to publish their search engine core to prevent vendor lock-in to Google search.

No Now, try to find out why...

Re:I want to get paid!!!

Google should be forced to publish their search engine core to prevent vendor lock-in to Google search.

No Now, try to find out why...

And as Google willingly publishes a ton of API's [google.com] to make it possible to interoperate and integrate their technologies, I think they are really going out of their way to play nice.

Re:EU = still playing where it doesn't belong

The only reason Microsoft has the position they do is that the governments of various countries have made it illegal for you to access information in certain ways. If it wasn't for government interference in the free actions of individuals, there would be no copyright laws at all. The government interferes with people's activities in this case because they contend an overall social good results.

Now, the governments have concluded that interfering with Microsoft will produce an overall social good. For Microsoft defenders to speak as if government interference is always a bad thing is ridiculous: they are complaining about the very thing that gives Microsoft any position at all.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

> The iPod should publish it's interfaces so that people can make competing iPod software.

You mean usb-storage? iTunes just uploads the data via usb storage, and i believe it creates a playlist too but there are already free tools for creating those anyway...
Also, you can buy a different kind of MP3 player without being at a disadvantage. If you use something other than windows you will often find you have issues interoperating with poorly designed services.

> Sony should be forced to reveal all of the hardware interfaces in the PS/3 so that people can make their own add-on devices.

Yes they should, unfortunately that would cause games manufacturers to leave the PS3 (PS/3 is what IBM would have called it) and develop for the other more proprietary consoles.
On the other hand, you can buy a cell based machine from IBM and connect an nvidia videocard to it, and thus you have a similar machine which you can program.

> Google should be forced to publish their search engine core to prevent vendor lock-in to Google search.

Google is a service rather than a product, you can choose to use it or not, and if you choose not to you aren't at a disadvantage to others. People don't send you files that "require google". Also, google has no method to lock their customers in, if someone else creates a better search engine then google will have no choice but to improve or die. windows on the other hand, keeps customers locked in using proprietary protocols and formats, regardless of how superior any of the competitors are.

Re:EU sucks.

Uninstall it how?
Last time i tried to uninstall the half-baked bundled apps, all it did was remove the icon and leave the apps on the system.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

The iPod should publish it's interfaces so that people can make competing iPod software.

I use my 60 GB Video iPod with Amarok [kde.org] under Fedora with absolutely no problems.
So you were saying?...

Re:I want to get paid!!!

No one is denying their right to make money.
The only thing which is being asked is to not use their market share to shutdown the competition. They are not asking them to provide the source code of windows kernel to linux guys. All they are asking is to provide a way for competition to connect with windows using THIER OWN FREAKIN CODE and not Microsoft's.
All they want to be provided is the documentation.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

The iPod should publish it's (sic) interfaces so that people can make competing iPod software.

There are already moves afoot to force Apple to open up their Digital Restrictions Management schemes in order that other vendors can sell music compatible with the iPod. TTBOMK the protocols for transferring songs and creating playlists are already understood, and the DRM is the last stumbling block remaining. Anyone already can shunt unprotected songs to an iPod.

Sony should be forced to reveal all of the hardware interfaces in the PS/3 so that people can make their own add-on devices.

Soon, they will be. DVD region locking is already illegal in the EU -- if you buy a DVD player on the Continent, it will play DVDs bought anywhere in the world. TTBOMK it's even OK to bring one into the UK if you cut off the mains plug (so it's not in a working condition and therefore is considered spare parts, as opposed to an electrical appliance). Region locking is considered anti-competitive behaviour. Vendor-locking of video games systems is likely to be addressed, and by my reckoning about 15-20 years in future. It isn't happening now because the influential politicians are mainly of a generation that predate video gaming as a mainstream activity. But those people will be replaced -- all it takes is the ticking of the clock. Some of us remember the Atari 2600 and how towards the end, the only decent games available for it were being made by third parties ..... and some of those people are already junior ministers working their way up through the machinery.

Google should be forced to publish their search engine core to prevent vendor lock-in to Google search.

Google already do publish enough information to enable a third party to:

1. Write an alternative user interface front-end which would work seamlessly with the Google search back-end
2. Write an alternative search back-end which would work seamlessly with the Google user interface front-end.

What Microsoft are being ordered to open up isn't their intellectual property, but part of the usage instructions. Admittedly it's a part that only means anything to rather advanced users, but nonetheless it's information to which users of Microsoft products are entitled. If I buy a guitar amplifier, I expect to be able to plug any guitar into it -- not just that manufacturer's guitars. And in the back of the handbook, it will give me the all information someone skilled in electronics would need to know in order to present a suitable signal to this amplifier -- the input impedance and expected voltage level. And in all probability, the connector will be a 6.3 mono jack. Now all I have to do is design my guitar pickup to have that voltage output into that impedance input and present it on that connector. More to the point, according to the law of the land, the amplifier manufacturer cannot stop me. If they tried to use some bizarre proprietary connector, any luthier would be within their rights to copy that connector for the purpose of making an instrument compatible with that amplifier.

Similarly, if I buy a Microsoft server, I should be able to choose any manufacturer's client to work with that server -- and if I buy a Microsoft client, I should be able to choose any manufacturer's server to work with it. By withholding information that people have a right to know on the flimsy pretext that most people would not know what to do with it anyway, Microsoft have created a monopoly for themselves -- a monopoly which might not have existed, had third parties been in a position to supply clients interoperable with Microsoft servers and servers interoperable with Microsoft clients. Unfortunately, withholding that information in the first place was actually illegal, and Microsoft must be punished.

Re:ha

If MS has to open up its APIs in the EU, and some OSS implements them, there's nothing to stop anyone in the US from using that OSS, is there?

Re:I want to get paid!!!

Microsoft should be paid for the operating system when they sell a license to use the operating system. They should make the information available so that people can use the operating system in order to operate the computer by running software that does what the operator wants. If Microsoft does not wish to sell an operating system that can be used to operate a computer independently, they should redesign the XBox to include IE and Office and sell it as a console. When I buy a console I expect to be forced to run only the software that comes from the manufacturer. When I buy an operating system, I expect it to allow me to operate my computer. By double dipping their "IP rights" Microsoft is selling an operating system that does not let me use a computer for what I want, but for what they are willing to give me. Add to this the fact that Microsoft has also sold me a license to run a programming suite (Java, C#, Visual Basic) on their operating system, I think it is a reasonable assumption that people should be allowed to write programs that the operating system will actually operate.

They wrap your hardware up in drivers, wrap the drivers up with APIs, and then want you to pay to use those APIs. Accessing those APIs is the purpose of an operating system. That is what allows you to operate your hardware.

Re:I want to get paid!!!

Microsoft: would you like us to mod you down today?

*ouch*, my karma!

Re:I want to get paid!!!

The iPod should publish it's interfaces so that people can make competing iPod software.

Sony should be forced to reveal all of the hardware interfaces in the PS/3 so that people can make their own add-on devices.

Google should be forced to publish their search engine core to prevent vendor lock-in to Google search.

One of these things is not like the others... if you can't figure it out, try google search ;p

Re:I want to get paid!!!

Copyrights, Patents, and other "IP" protection pieces of paoer exist only by the will of the state... That was from the Supreme Court when Lessing tried to reign in the constant upping of the limits. (yes, not related to EU law... but most /.rs are in the US) So technically it is entirely fair game when a company breaks the law to pull it's copyright/patent/trademark protections as punishment!

With that in mind... the EU has requested enough info for other computers to interoperate with windows. What they have repeatedly stated is for enough APIs to be released so Windows file servers can be "black box" on the network and other services can use them. They want the specs for the "wire" into the server. Microsoft is acting like a stalling child here. They keep trying to present all sorts of Windows Server internals that NOBODY is asking for and couldn't use anyway. The EU could do all sorts of other things, but what they are asking is by far the most legally enforceable, minimally precedent setting, thing to ask for. They are not asking for 1 single line of Microsoft code, what they are asking for is instructions how the server with their files acts. Personally, I think the Novell deal (when Microsoft almost settled with the EU) was an attempt to subvert the Samba project by granting them a backdoor to all these restrictions and then haveing novell "agree" that Samba was full of Microsoft IP so nobody else could use it. The key samba developers LEFT Novell before the work was tainted by the "agreement" so now the EU court is back asking for the proper documentation...heck projects like Samba have 75% of what they need reverse engineered, even Microsoft has had to use Samba's documentation because it is better than what the actual MS programmers have!!!

Another poster mentioned that the case should attack Microsoft for what gains they made illegally... opening the file format costs Microsoft LOCK-IN! It's a small amount of money to make the specs... far less than the $400 M the fines are up to, but they won't do it... it removes a cog from their monopoly... which is why it MUST be made to happen!!!!!