Microsoft Makes EU Dispute Docs Public 227
mjdroner writes "ZDNet is reporting that Microsoft has posted confidential documents used in its defense of European Commission antitrust practices related to server software. Explaining the posting of the documents, which the EC considers confidential, a Microsoft rep said, 'Transparency is vitally important in what can be a very opaque process in Brussels.'"
ask a billion people (Score:5, Interesting)
If you can't get the opinion or results you want from the commission, throw it out to the public and see if you can generate a groundswell of support.
I think this is what Microsoft hopes to do. I doubt they'll succeed.
From The Fine Article (emphasis mine):
The commission isn't buying Microsoft's protest, the "buying" public won't either.
What's interesting though is just in sheer numbers, Microsoft will find empathy, support, and voices to support their claim they're being treated unfairly.
BIG MISTAKE (Re:ask a billion people) (Score:2)
Just ask McDonald's how that's working out for them...
You'll soon see people flinging their Windows® CDs at the windows of American embassies...
Warm and fuzzies for Bill (Score:2, Interesting)
Hence, yet another ad campaign. This one, if you read past the misleading headlines, is meant to change MS' image away from being American [nwsource.com], to being international or 'local'.
If the case were wrapped up right away, MS would really be in difficulty. However, MS has been able to drag it out several years already and even affect the selection of judges and the decision process. It took ten years for MS' investment in Craig [salon.com]
Re:BIG MISTAKE (Re:ask a billion people) (Score:2)
Re:BIG MISTAKE (Re:ask a billion people) (Score:2)
Re:BIG MISTAKE (Re:ask a billion people) (Score:2)
Plus, it was also a musing on our American Embassy here in Ireland. I pass the American Embassy in Dublin every day - I'm sure their security is more lax then elsewhere - but to describe it as 'fortress-like' would not be wrong - surrounded by high railin
Re:ask a billion people (Score:2)
I hope this also sends more signals to others who attempt to license, partner, negotiate, etc with Microsoft. They'll do anything to get their way. Anything. IMO.
LoB
Fool me once, shame on you (Score:2)
Is that the answer you seek, Troll?
You owe me three oreo cookies and a session of answering trolls.
Re:Fool me once, shame on you (Score:2)
Re:Fool me once, shame on you (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fool me once, shame on you (Score:2)
The quality of trolling (Score:5, Insightful)
Aside from that, Microsoft has burnt zillions of people zillions of times. It is their corporate culture. Anyone who doubts that is beyond belief and beyond relief. Anyone who asks why this particular action, or any action, by Microsoft is seen in a less than favourable light is either so wet behind the ears as to be drowning, or a troll; when was the last announcement by Microsoft that was anything but disingenuous? Since drowning people are seldom found pecking away naive questions on keyboards, it is a pretty safe bet that we are dealing with a troll.
Re:ask a billion people (Score:2)
If Microsoft is going to show so little respect for the EU and the Commission then I don't really see how they expect to work with them diplomatically over settling this.
Re:ask a billion people (Score:2)
Well I live in the EU and if my courts are making judgements, I want to know how they reach them. I have no doubt that Micro$oft are doing this because they think they will benefit. But by my value system, I benefit too, so good on them.
Re:ask a billion people (Score:2)
Re:ask a billion people (Score:2)
Re:ask a billion people (Score:2)
Re:ask a billion people (Score:2)
Two can play at that game... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Two can play at that game... (Score:2)
Microsoft already rolled over and explosed its soft pink belly, while the EU just kept on attacking.
The EU complained about WMP, Microsoft gave them "XP N"; The EU responded by whining that, surprise surprise, no one wanted it so Microsoft hadn't satisfied their conditions.
The EU complained that Microsoft needed to allow interoperability with its formats, Microsoft offered to make source code availa
Re:Two can play at that game... (Score:2)
Source code is a result of implementing a specification. Formats are defined by specifications, not by proprietary source code.
Re:Two can play at that game... (Score:2)
Still in the wonderful rose-tinted world of academia, eh?
I used to think that as well. In the "real" world, you consider yourself truly blessed to have the vaguest skeleton of a spec to code to, and if you have a slow week a few months after finishing the first released implemenation, you flesh out that skeleton with what you did.
In over ten years of professional coding, I'v
Re:Two can play at that game... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Two can play at that game... (Score:2)
That's no more true of Microsoft's code than it is of the GPLed code if you regularly work with non-GPLed projects.
Re:Two can play at that game... (Score:2)
You reckon? How do you define "seems intent" in that case? I mean Microsoft certainly aren't "down" here, and all the EU seem to want is for Microsoft to supply the interface documentation that they already agreed to supply, with a level of detal deemed sufficient by a body of experts Microsoft helped choose. That doesn't sound much like an intent
Re:The EU is to chicken too play that game (Score:2)
To who? Who does that help?
and even the source code in question
Yeah, but not without strings! So it doesn't exactly level the playing field.
despite providing 1200 (or 12000, I forget which) pages of documentation
I believe that the problem is that the documentation is in some way lacking! That being the case (and I agree, it is subjective), then the EU would be correct in declaring is insufficient, since thats the whole point!
I think it's quite clear that no matter w
Re:The EU is to chicken too play that game (Score:2)
Anyone liscensing the documentation.
Yeah, but not without strings! So it doesn't exactly level the playing field.
Nothing is without "strings"; go into McDonalds and order a hamburger -- they'll tell you that you have to pay for it before they'll give you one.
What specifically do you object to?
I believe that the problem is that the documentation is in some way lacking! That being the case (and I agree, it is subjective), then the EU would be correct in declaring is insufficient, si
Re:The EU is to chicken too play that game (Score:2)
I believe its the case that there's a cost issue with gaining access to source code (and presumably the 500 hours of support), which means that things aren't level.
Don't get me wrong here, I don't expect MS to provide free support to anyone. I'm simply pointing out that if you have to pay for it, then it isn't free! And if the intention of the EU action is to make the field level, then this won't help. Thus, we can ignore this and concentrate on the documentation...
T
Re:The EU is to chicken too play that game (Score:2)
Access to the source code is an issue separate to access to the documents and the 500 hours of support. The EU has to approve any and all fees involved with liscensing the documentation, and thus far the EU has not issued an objection on that front.
I've not seen the documentation myself so I can't comment. So either it was good documentation, ba
Re:The EU is to chicken too play that game (Score:2)
Actually, I didn't. I've just referred to documentation. One of the GPs might have referred to source code, but that wasn't me.
My understanding is that the 500 hours of support goes with the access to the source code. Thus it, too, is irrelevant to the discussion.
My understanding is that it goes with access to the doc
Re:The EU is to chicken too play that game (Score:2)
This is exactly what I'm referring to. Microsoft was quite open in it's support of software patents -- you knew they were trying to screw you. All of the beaurocrats were making deals behind closed doors -- you didn't know if or how they were trying to screw you.
Aim, Shoot Foot !! (Score:5, Interesting)
The battle is heating up. I can see now that the UE have the moral incensitive to switch their document to OpenDocument in the near future.
I Hope they do.
Re:Aim, Shoot Foot !! (Score:2)
Do you mean they could be morally incensed enough to switch their document format?
Or they could be morally insensitive enough to switch their document format?
The latter would be
Re:Aim, Shoot Foot !! (Score:2)
From Webster:
So someone could be sufficiently incensed to change their document format as I offered in my previous post.
Put another way (Score:5, Insightful)
Conclusion: go for it.
Re:Put another way (Score:2)
I don't think they will, but for Microsoft the potential downside of pissing off those in nominal control of a huge marketplace has no end. In theory Bill could end up in jail, and he might get arrested and released 'just to send the message'.
I get the feeling that the dumb games they have been playing are going to come back to
Much, much easier way out (Score:2)
Why bother?
Keep in mind that Microsoft's whole business is built on priveleges granted by the State. If Microsoft refuses to accept the authority of the State, the State can in turn refuse Microsoft recourse to the courts.
Put another way, the EU could declare Microsoft's copyrights unenforcable. Care to guess what that would do to the bottom line?
Re:Put another way (Score:2)
I'm unsure how copyright law works in Europe, but I would imagine EU member nations could respond by passing laws that remove the copyright protection enjoyed by Microsoft's products in their countries.
Two can play the scorched earth game.
Re:Put another way (Score:2)
At which point they are in violation of the Berne convention and about a dozen other IP treaties they've signed off on. Not that MS is really going to withdraw its products, but if, hypothetically, they did, the EU would either have to let them go, or watch the entire worldwide IP system fall apart. Consi
Re:Put another way (Score:2)
No, they wouldn't. The Berne Convention doesn't apply to organizations involved in criminal activities which refuse to comply with local laws. If MS doesn't abide by the EU strictures the EU is well within its international rights to declare MS such an entity and seize the source for distribution.
This ruling would have no effect on any corporation other than MS (except, perhaps, as a warn
Re:Put another way (Score:2)
Unless the law specifies copyright revocation as a penalty for criminal behavior, it's a violation of the Berne convention, which requires European countries to treat foreign copyrights and copyright-holders the same was as domestic ones are treated. No doubt you can point to the relevant portion of European law that specifies such a penalty, and give examples of when it's been impo
Re:Put another way (Score:2)
Compulsory licensing is not the same as copyright revocation, which is what was proposed above.
Re:Put another way (Score:2)
Re:Put another way (Score:2)
Let me see...
Microsoft withdraws product sales and support from the EU.
All those countries either buy a competitors product, or Open Source products.
Suddenly, in the parts of the world that do any business with the EU, a need for compatability with the systems and applications used in the EU (NOT Microsoft suites and applications) emerges. Companies an
Re:Put another way (Score:2)
Re:Put another way (Score:2)
That's what you think. If Microsoft disappeared from the face of the earth forever, there would be about two weeks of panic. After two weeks, Dell would ship half of its computers with Linux, and the other half with MacOS X (can you imagine how quick they would have a deal with Apple? ). After six months, Micr
Re:Put another way (Score:2)
Think of all the people locked in to proprietary microsoft formats and protocols?
Admittedly it was incredibly stupid to get into a position of being so dependant on a single vendor, but now that they are many organisations would lose access to large amounts of their data.
transparency FTW (Score:2, Interesting)
Flat out: transparency in government is a good thing.
EU government (and the US gov't for that matter) is entirely too opaque for my preference.
This isn't government transparency. (Score:2)
Re:transparency FTW (Score:2)
All I can find is "Microsoft's Response to the European Commission," so I don't think I'm far
Re:transparency FTW (Score:2, Insightful)
This isn't transparency though. Microsoft have published their response and two expert opinions. Great. But surely you realise that's only part of the picture? And that the EU cannot disclose the rest of the picture because Microsoft have a right to privacy that they have yet to formally waive?
This stinks. Microsoft gets to select bits and pieces to support their case, while keeping the rest under wraps, and the EU can't respond because Microsoft has a right to privacy - and yet Microsoft are being
Re:transparency FTW (Score:2)
By violating any confidentiality agreements of the proceedings, Microsoft may be ruled by the EU as having waived all rights to confidentiality of the proceedings. Pissing off judges is not the recommended way to get a ruling in your favor.
Re:transparency FTW (Score:5, Insightful)
If Microsoft is such a fan of transparency, maybe the EU should release all the correspondence in full, including the Microsoft "business secrets." (But of course, then Microsoft would throw a legal hissy fit.)
Re:transparency FTW (Score:2)
And they have. The final list that supposedly contains the details of the contested code IBM supposedly put into Linux was filed under seal. Only SCO, IBM and the court know what's in it.
Re:transparency FTW (Score:3, Insightful)
Just too often to be ignored. Microsoft aren't unpopular because they're successful, they're unpopular because they deserve to be.
Re:transparency FTW (Score:2)
Let's turn this around a little more and say SCO requested that some of IBM's responses should be sealed because they contain SCO's "IP" - while on the other hand spinning the PR as to say that IBM does not have a valid response. They know nobody's going to shot them down for it, as nobody has access to the response to check their claims.
For all you know, if the EC can't, for whatever reason, put forth their own version
Re:transparency FTW (Score:2)
1) obviously, but there are always exceptions. The best one can hope is transparency in the medium term (think Secret Service, where secrecy on th sort term is vital); it might seem like nitpicking, but blindly going to one extreme can be as damaging as blindly going to the other. Ho
Sauce for the Goose (Score:5, Insightful)
But apparently transparency is not vitally important for APIs.
Re:The "I" in API.. (Score:2)
Sure, we don't need or usually even want to know how the underlying implementation works but if your going to create an API, why two? One for you and your crew and a, um sub-par, one for everyone else? How is that "transparent"?
Re:The "I" in API.. (Score:2)
"Starting at the earlier of the release of Service Pack 1 for Windows XP or 12 months after the submission of this Final Judgment to the Court, Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and OEMs, for the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product, via the Microsoft Developer Network ("MSDN") or similar mechanisms, the APIs and related Documentation that are used by Microsoft Middleware to interoperate with a Wi
Re:The "I" in API.. (Score:2)
dirty tricks as usual. (Score:2, Insightful)
Can't believe it! (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't believe what I'm reading! Since when have Microsoft been interested in transparancy and openness. This is the same company that calls Open Source Softare an evil communist cancer. The same company which held secret dodgy meetings with the Republican administration which saw the US government change its mind from wanting to split up the company to wanting to give it a light slap on the wrist.
And now they want transparancy. Talk about double standards!
Re:Can't believe it! (Score:5, Insightful)
RIGHT. Excuse me for being an European and LAUGHING my ass off each and EVERY time I hear about ANOTHER idiotic legal experience from the USA. Next time I hear somebody start saying "US Legal system is better in/because/...", I'll just hit him over the head with a large brick and let him TRY to sue me.
Re:Can't believe it! (Score:2)
Re:Can't believe it! (Score:2)
Re:Can't believe it! (Score:2)
Getting sued would be the least unpleasant outcome of hitting an American with a brick.
Re:Can't believe it! (Score:2, Funny)
Maybe you missed the memo, but we have guns over here. Lots of guns. I would not recommend the brick thing.
Suing people is definitely the preferred method.
Ummm... (Score:2)
If anything can be said to support Microsoft, at least they don't make tobacco products.
Only entity worse than a corporation (Score:2)
Like Microsoft or not, there is no reason issues like this should be secret unless trade secrets are at risk, and even then that should only be a concern up until guilt is proven.
You mean like... (Score:2)
Kinda like Open Source, would't you say?
Hmmmm... (Score:3, Interesting)
I am not joking: Europe has some fairly strict laws concerning the confidentiality of judicial proceedings. For instance, in France, journalists can be convicted for publishing documents related to an ongoing investigation, and I think it's the same in Germany and in the UK. (And before American citizens out there start screaming: "Freedom of Speech!", please remember that these rules have been edicted to protect the "innocence" of a person/company until proven guilty).
So, this little spat between Microsoft and the EU could become interesting quite quickly...
Re:Hmmmm... (Score:2)
Just because they took some random stuff and put it on the net when they had no right to do so? Who would have a problem with that?
Information wants to be free, yo!
Re:Hmmmm... (Score:2)
Actually, we would start screaming "freedom of the press!" since you didn't say anything about talking about it :P
But what I would start screaming is "bullshit" because opacity in government (or legal proceedings) is just a way to keep those damned citizens out of your hair while you fuck 'em over.
Re:Hmmmm... (Score:2)
No, that's in Cuba. You know, the little bit of Cuba in the bottom-right corner with the Stars and Stripes flying over it?
TWW
Bill, meet Dale . . . (Score:2)
Re:Bill, meet Dale . . . (Score:2)
The reality here... (Score:2)
Novell could have dealt with all of this in a much more positive manner three years ago when they bought SUSE. If they'd picked up their corporate HQ and moved it from Utah to Ger
Re:The reality here... (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft's primary crime -- of which it has been found guilty and for which it has been sentenced -- was breaking monopoly rules. Anything they're doing here is secondary (assuming that what they're doing here really is wrong; I haven't read the documents so I don't know whether Microsoft or the EC is in the right at this point).
Just because the current US administration laughably let off their own corporation within days of coming to power for dubious reasons, you can't really expect anyone else to do the same. Nor can you realistically claim that the rest of the world is somehow being harsh on Microsoft just because they actually enforce their own laws against them where the US obviously and publicly declined to do so (after a change of administration). Microsoft knew the rules, knew it was at best walking a tightrope, and chose to do business that way anyway.
In any case, you seem to have little understanding of how European "democracy" works. European Commissioners are almost entirely unaccountable. Many are political rejects whose prominent careers failed in their own countries to the extent that they could no longer hold a high public office credibly, and thus they get assigned (not voted by the electorate) to positions on the EC by national governments looking out for their own. The whole thing is a corrupt pile of politicised shenanigans, and if you really think the commissioners care anything for the electorate or businesses, rather than their own political lives and protecting those who installed them in their positions of power, you need to read a little more about how European politics works and why it needs changing.
Re:The reality here... (Score:2)
And what's the excuse for it being convicted in US courts?
The only difference I see is the EC is actually enforcing the penalty handed down after the conviction. The US decided for the figurative "slap on the wrist" and are now trying to figure out what to do because MS isn't sitting still for even that.
Re:The reality here... (Score:2)
Still you are right to ask the question but Microsoft are in trouble because their business practises contravene the norms.
200 pages of documents.... (Score:4, Insightful)
More like... (Score:2)
On the one hand, maybe MSFT deliberatly delivered obtuse documents.
Another possibility is that there is no clear documentation. Many software projects start with vague specifications and grow organically. What little documentation there was, if any, quickly becomes obsolete.
I know I would hate to have to promise that my documentation matches the current state
Re:More like... (Score:2)
I know I would hate to have to promise that my documentation matches the current state of my latest software...
You'd think with hundreds of millions of dollars on the line they could afford to hire a few people to create said documentation if they wanted to comply. One thing of note, the independent commissioner who judged the documentation insufficient was a guy MS picked for the job.
Nah not very plausible (Score:2)
"Producing a rigorous, complete, stand-alone specification for Microsoft work group server functionalities - or any software system of such enormous complexity - that is free of errors and omissions is beyond the state of the art and far beyond industrial practice"
So when an MS engineers dies, his secrets die with him? Nah.
So MS engineers are a bree
Re:More like... (Score:2)
If a protocol is still changing, then the software implementing it is still in pre-beta stages... Any release-ready versions should have stable protocols...
Documented protocols are incredibly important, without them the internet would not work.
I'm sure to access slashdot you're using at the very least:
DNS
HTTP
ARP
TCP
UDP
Ethernet
HTML
if not a lot more...
While I always like transparency... (Score:2, Insightful)
Clear (Score:3, Interesting)
Hypocritical. Bastards.
Re:Clear (Score:2)
Honestly, I don't see why a company should be forced to expose their source code. A company investing billions into code has the right to protect their investment.
Should Mercedez, GM, Ford, BMW, VW, Fiat, Ferrari etc post detailed plans of every car and engine technology they design.
Should google disclose their indexing technology?
Should the US or EU post documents about every weapon they are in development or have developed.
Should an airplane company like AirBus post plans
Re:Clear (Score:2)
Oh, the irony (Score:2)
Influencing government (Score:2)
Re:Influencing government (Score:2)
Now carefully planned assassinations, that I can see
MacroHard (Score:3, Insightful)
Now why the fuck did they do that? (Score:2)
What you will do, for playing the arrogant american card (telling a European court to look at the way US courts do things makes my blood boil, the bunch of scum fucking bastards, and I'm not even
Nope, makes perfect sense (Score:2)
Reminds me of the anti-trust case in 2002... (Score:2)
It's the same now: if you want to make sure that everybody can view your data, Microsoft formats alone are not the way to go.
Test Suites (Score:2)
But the source is worthless for OSS projects; contribute to samba after seeing it and the MS lawyers will have you. So the offer of source access is clearly a tactic to give the EU the illusion of openness, without it being of any value. Just like what happened af
Re:What about the reports? (Score:2)
Sauce for the Gander? (Score:2)
Let's do the list:
- Dealing from a position of ounfair advantage... [check]
- Failing to disclose requirements... [check]
- Revising requirements without notice or explination... [check]
- Failure to document anything... [check]
- Using non-disclosure to keep control of the weaker party... [check]
- Being generally "unfair"... [check]
- Persisting and iterating t