EU Rejects Microsoft Royalty Proposal 274
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That was not the point I argued for. Microsoft is asked only to disclose the protocols necessary for third parties to communicate with Microsof
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Royalty Why pay? (Score:2)
With true interoperability, then competitors such as Openoffice.org or Mplayer can compete on technology.
There is no reason Microsoft should be allowed to keep protocols or codecs for media secret, and absoultly no basis to charge for them.
there are not Copyright able and patents do not apply ev
Re: (Score:2)
But, of course! A software company that supplies the OS for over 90% of the desktop PC-s, and a man who rapes little kids - exactly the same thing!
Simple is genius, and you man, have gallons of wisdom to share with the world. Keep posting, keep posting!!
Re: (Score:2)
Uhm, aren't they the criminals here? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Get charged with selling drugs to little kids, then as a deal to avoid jail time and fines, you get punished by having to give free samples of the drug to those kids. Worked for Microsoft in the US...
Re:Uhm, aren't they the criminals here? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Phillip.
Re:Uhm, aren't they the criminals here? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember it is "Interlectual Property", and when you break the law the goverment is entitled to confiscate what parts of your property it sees as reasonable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Uhm, aren't they the criminals here? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, no reason they should need the money. A smaller company being made to release protocols might be in a decent position to request payment, if they have a need to recoup significant investment. I don't think it's the act of payment that's the issue, its that microsoft do not need to charge to make their money back, they just want to so they can limit access.
I personally think they are effectively unbeatable in court
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
HRH William Gates III (Score:4, Funny)
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.
It's true! (Score:5, Funny)
I don't think this will help... (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
-- chribo
What about the EU fines ? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the last part depends on the license. Anyone (MS included) can use BSD-licensed code in their closed source software. (They can also try to just sell plain builds of it too, of course, though it's a bit tricky when someone else can undercut them for nothing. It's easier to build a business when you're adding some value.) By comparison, the GPL proh
Re: (Score:2)
No it does not. The free licenses allow you to inspect the code, understand how it works and use that knowledge elsewhere -- including for building closed source software. There is a big difference between reading the code and copying it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
While it is true that they would be allowed to retaliate, my understanding is that the retaliation cannot be arbitrary. That is, they can raise duties on selected US goods, to make them uncompetitive with goods from other countries. It does not give them carte blance to release trade secrets.
I do not believe ignore is the proper word for describing the situation.
Aieee (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:2)
Royalties? (Score:2)
Re:I want to get paid!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
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
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I want to get paid!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
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!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I want to get paid!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Then they release a new car, with new tires and new specifications and did NOT tell anyone what the specifications are. So you have to blindly buy from microsoft without even knowing what you are buying...at twice the price of the old tires of course!
If we had as much detail about MSFT protocols as you describe about the tires there would
true, but... (Score:2)
Re:I want to get paid!!! (Score:4, Informative)
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!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
You missunderstand. (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
What would be interesting to know is the actual legal basis of the decision. MS, for one reason or another, is being deprived of a form of "intellectual property", albeit the weakest form there is. The question is are they being forced to do this in order to foster competition, or are they being forced do this as punishment for their anticompetitive practices?
Frankly, I agree with the zero royalty idea. Once the secret has been licensed enough time
Re: (Score:2)
Once trade secrets are revealed, then they are no longer secrets, but a company is allowed to protect its confidential information, and can exact damages for improper disclosure.
In the UK, I understand that trade secrets are treated somewhat differently from property rights, but they are still protected; the range of the remedies would be somewhat different.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I tend to agree with you there, but I also believe that since they already did substantial damage by not complying, it is quite reasonable to demand that they compensate for that.
Paying a fine is no big penalty for
Re: (Score:2)
They made themselves a huge target, they should be expecting consequences a lot more severe than this.
Re:I want to get paid!!! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I want to get paid!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
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!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
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!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
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!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Unfortunately we're not talking aboit Microsoft Office but about interaction with Windows servers, which uses secret protocols so that no-one but Microsoft can write compatible sof
Re:I want to get paid!!! (Score:5, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:2)
True - Except the EU makes tries to enforce its policies worldwide, not just within the EU.
You mean like the US government telling Russia that they cannot join the WTO if they don't enact the appropriate copyright laws and close down Allofmp3? Or like the US government threatening Sweden with the WTO watchlist for not closing down The Pirate Bay as demanded (they finally did that a year ago, just to have it open three days later).
I'd call that two blatant examples of trying to enforce your own policies worldwide.
Microsoft has no European analogue... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
It worked pretty well didn't it? Boeing's near monopoly of the airliner market was eroded to a point where there is now real competition. You can still piss and moan about state subsidies and easy loans being handed to Airbus and you can also piss and moan about the way Boeing is being handed access to materials and technologies developed on behalf of the US Govt. for military purposes practically free of charge for use in it's airliner business and the way Military contracts with Boeing are being used as
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Who would want to? (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who would want to? (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
*ouch*, my karma!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I want to get paid!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I want to get paid!!! (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
And in any event their main interface is stock standard html.
Re:I want to get paid!!! (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
If they charged a hefty fee (as Microsoft does) and were the de-facto standard (as Microsoft is) than that would certainly change things in my perspective.
I believe that customers should then be able to -demand- an open API (which Google also gives away for free at this point).
I even think that if Microsoft wanted to license Google's services to rebrand it, they could even do that for a fair price even though they're the competition. Now THAT is fair competition a
Re:I want to get paid!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:EU = still playing where it doesn't belong (Score:4, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
mod this guy up please (Score:2)
thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
IP == "free market?!" WTF?!??! (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Bullshit. The economical definition of free market has nothing to do with anarchy / lack of laws. It's not about a market free of rules, but free of government intervention. A free market lacks the government as a market player, acting only as a neutral "referee"
Re: (Score:2)
Enforcing artificial monopolies is intervention.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:EU = still playing where it doesn't belong (Score:5, Informative)
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.
DOS 2 (Score:3, Informative)
"DOS isn't done 'till Lotus won't run"
Microsoft does not merely control its APIs, it has a history of abusing that control for anticompetitive purposes.
Re: (Score:2)
Please read this link: http://www.proudlyserving.com/archives/2005/08/dos [proudlyserving.com] _aint_done_t.html
Lotus 1-2-3 was one of the main reasons people were buying MS-DOS based computers. Lotus was _the_ killer app for the PC back in the day. A more accurate quote would rather be: '
Re: (Score:2)
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.
For example ?
Re:EU = still playing where it doesn't belong (Score:5, Insightful)
Which they should not have to, as MAPI is (supposedly) an open standard.
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.
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.
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.)
MOD PARENT UP! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember, it's not illegal to have a monopoly but i
Re:EU = still playing where it doesn't belong (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Interoperability (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
You may have noticed that both the US government and the European Union have found Microsoft to be a monopolist. Government regulation is a solution to monopolism.
Thanks,
GerardM
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Interoperability (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
I have worked with DEC gear for 20 years and I can think of many examples of closed interfaces which they used to keep competitors from interfacing with their systems and taking their markets.
Their approach to third party alpha motherboards was very close to that of apple to clone makers.
They used the same old tactic, but that doesn't make what Microsoft are doing right. The difference now is that we have more, better,
Re:Interoperability -- commodity definition (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
According to the expert named by MS for this investigation, the documentation for which they demand royalties has hardly any innovation - typical MS embrace & extend of existing, open protocols. This is the reason for EU's rejection of proposed royalties. So I wouldn't put too much emphasis on MS' "developing" protocols. I agree with the second half of yo
Monopoly (Score:2)
Because they have a monopoly.
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.
In other words, nobody had a monopoly on system software... not even IBM, who had several operating systems and application platforms. And interfaces and protocols were publicly available to a degree that seems amazingly open now,
forced them to open up their protocols (Score:3, Interesting)
IBM actually WAS forced to open up protocols and specifications. I have actually held in my own hands the "360 OEM Channel Specification" once upon a time. It was the very document that allowed 3rd parties to connect their peripherals to IBM mainframes, and I believe that it was one of a range of similar documents that IBM was required to divulge.
It's all well and good to be feisty and innovative as a company. But once you've become "the Standard of the industry" things becom
Re: (Score:2)
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.
And if IBM had been as good as MS at business tactics and were still in that position today, they would be facing exactly the same consequences MS is.
There's a reason people keep using "bad car" analogies. It's because computers these days are on a global scale as necessary and ubiquitous as cars are in the US. This was not the case in IBM's heyday, even in the commercial or industrial arena.
To use yet one more "bad car" analogy, it's as if [insert car manufacturer here] manufactured not only automobiles,
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)