OSNews

That's the basic problem, isn't it? If you could fully-interoperate with Microsoft tools and services without threat of getting sued, then their monopoly of the desktop is less important. I don't fault the EU for taking MS to task, as our government has failed to act for whatever reason. What remains to be seen weather or not FOSS will be able to license these specs under reasonable terms.

Well put!

I might be wrong but I believe that, in the long run, FLOSS doesn't need to license any of MS's 'stuff'. All the consumer really needs, IMO, is more proprietary choice. With more proprietary choice comes the realization that the PC is not Windows/MS Office.

Anyway, if you look at the gains being made by projects like Wine, OpenOffice.org and NTFS-3G without the help of MS APIs, the FLOSS movement seems to be doing fine on it's own ;-)

It has taken a long time but finally they are coughing up!

I know allot of people (including a certain editor ;-) have expressed they're displeasure at the EU for they're supposed anti MS crusade but frankly, if the US doesn't have the backbone to do it, somebody has too.

Now lets see MS compete on a more even playing field. I'm sure with real competition they have every reason to start releasing even better products.

Looks like the consumer can only gain from this.

Don't get your hopes up. Now that they've published the specs they already use, they are free to change them again.

Source Code for Windows/Office.

There's no reason why their obsfugated version of the SMB protocol, an OPEN protocol developed originally by IBM, should be considered a trade secret. The EU saw through this ruse, and the technical expert that MS appointed analyzed their extension of the protocol and found so significant innovation there.

This should make the work of the Samba team magnitudes easier.

Microsoft still offers access to source code of their major products to qualified customers (Goverments for example). However, you can check the source code for information purposes.

EU asked them to release full specs for their communication protocols so that anyone can write interoperable software. It's a completely different matter.

Did you read the article?

Now it's time for those who claimed they were damaged by Microsoft policy to show what they can do.

If in a year from when it will happen, Outlook will still be the best e-mail client and Exchange the most used ent server... well.. it's better that those people dig their own hole ;-)

Were they ever the best email clients? Best for interfacing with Outlook and Exchange, maybe: But that's hardly surprising. One might just as well state that the best Parisian French dialect...is Parisian French.

Nevertheless, it'll be surprising if anything outstrips Outlook in Exchange connectivity. As I wrote above, now that they have published the specs to the protocols they are using, they can change them again.

Were they ever the best email clients? Best for interfacing with Outlook and Exchange, maybe: But that's hardly surprising. One might just as well state that the best Parisian French dialect...is Parisian French.
Definitely they ARE. And in a market where one cannot claim there is no competition. Not only they are the best, but they are cheaper than most other solutions.

Nevertheless, it'll be surprising if anything outstrips Outlook in Exchange connectivity. As I wrote above, now that they have published the specs to the protocols they are using, they can change them again.
Sure, but first: once you have the protocols public, others can write servers / clients compatible with them and that's an huge advantage. (BTW, I wonder if IBM publicly released specs for their messaging solution... anyone knows that?)

second: changing your protocols IS NOT a trivial task not something one could do just because. Of course they could change them but not in a night and they should release modifications anyway.

Also notice that keeping your protocols closed IS NOT illegal nor wrong. Microsoft has been forced to release them only because of their near-monopoly status.

Definitely they ARE. And in a market where one cannot claim there is no competition.

Really? Then how is it that only Microsoft know how to fully interoperate with Exchange?

Not only they are the best, but they are cheaper than most other solutions.

Can you back that up with cold, hard facts?

Sure, but first: once you have the protocols public, others can write servers / clients compatible with them and that's an huge advantage.

Which will disappear the minute Microsoft change the specs again. One can't predict the future, but it's hardly unlikely that, having done it time and again in the past, they won't do it again.

(BTW, I wonder if IBM publicly released specs for their messaging solution... anyone knows that?)

I don't know either. However, I'm not going to excuse Microsoft's bad behaviour on the basis that IBM may be no better.

second: changing your protocols IS NOT a trivial task not something one could do just because.

They do it "just because" they want to gain/maintain a monopoly. Just ask the SAMBA folks.

Of course they could change them but not in a night and they should release modifications anyway.

"should" != "will". Indeed where Microsoft is concerned "should" often == "not on your nelly".

Also notice that keeping your protocols closed IS NOT illegal nor wrong. Microsoft has been forced to release them only because of their near-monopoly status.

Given that no-one wants to have to deal with umpteen different protocols (witness the death of every other LAN protocol since the growth of the Internet), the only way to deal with closed protocols is to give one company a monopoly. So it's kind of a vicious circle.

"...changing your protocols IS NOT a trivial task not something one could do just because..."

Microsoft has enough resources that changing the protocols should be completely a trivial task. The only possible issue might be in getting everyone to update their servers and clients at the same time for a seamless experience, but that hasn't stopped them from rolling out protocol updates in the past.

And, maintaining a competitive advantage is not a trivial reason for a common commercial business, much less a convicted monopolist.

Microsoft has been forced to release them only because of their near-monopoly status.

Have you not been paying attention to this lawsuit? Or are you presuming that no one else has been?

Microsoft has had this legal remedy forced on them because of their abuse of market power and because the remedies they were willing to implement weren't satisfactory. Even if they weren't a monopoly (or near-monopoly as you nearly described it) this remedy would be appropriate because of what MS has done.

It would also appear that "best", as you use the word, means the one that can't be avoided without taking special efforts. Alternatively "best" may mean the one that makes standard software fail to conect to 'Doze. It certainly doesn't refer to high quality, ease of use and reliability/security.

OUtlook the best email client? What for? Viruses or wasting time.

When we've switched people to Thunderbird they have been really pleased with how easy it is to use.

And Exchange as the most used server?!?!

On what planet? Most email on Earth moves via unix email servers such as Sendmail, qmail, Postfix, Courier, etc etc.

Yet again - someone who only has a PC and SBS thinks they can write about IT. Remember the internet is a unix network - PC's and servers running Windows are only at the edge of the internet.

More like a Cisco or VXWorks network... do you think all the switches and routers are running unix?

True enough in the present. However, I'm sure other competitors of days gone by are wishing steps had been taken to increase competition in the days they had a fighting chance.

refund every cent for it's abuse of MS' rights.

No government has the right to limit MS' success. Nor decide what MS can do.

What MS does with it's software is only MS' business. And no one else's business. If the EU government want their own in-house copy of the source code to handle certain Office formats, they can enter negociations with MS. They'll be more than happy to share their productivity at a price.

Since the EU is, like, the EU's government, it has the right to set the rules, as long as those rules are arrived at by the chosen process - i.e. in the EU's case, elected representatives voting on matters approved by civil servants. Your arguments propose carte blanche to companies, including the right to, say, rape babies as long as doing so increases profits.

It's not much less distasteful to say that Microsoft should have the right to hold the EU (and presumably any other government) to ransom, than it is to say what I said in the above paragraph.

Nothing produces quite so much manure quite so well as a fan of Microsoft and closed-source software.

Since the EU is, like, the EU's government, it has the right to set the rules, as long as those rules are arrived at by the chosen process - i.e. in the EU's case, elected representatives voting on matters approved by civil servants. Your arguments propose carte blanche to companies, including the right to, say, rape babies as long as doing so increases profits.

As long what MS does respects other's freedoms, it's all good. Making contracts isn't raping babies. Because when you rape babies, you violate another's freedom. You're still confused between rights and choices.

What my arguments propose is the way of doing business: laisser-faire market. The way everybody on Earth did before the state started to intervene everytime someone were sobbing for their failures.

Stop punishing people for their successes.

It's not much less distasteful to say that Microsoft should have the right to hold the EU (and presumably any other government) to ransom, than it is to say what I said in the above paragraph.

More fear based argument.

Nothing produces quite so much manure quite so well as a fan of Microsoft and closed-source software.

And a well finished post by ranting and an insult.

"Because when you rape babies, you violate another's freedom. You're still confused between rights and choices. "

When you assault other markets using your dominance in the OS area, you're infringing other's freedom: competing in a level field.

That seems like the main political difference between the US and the EU.
Simplified:
The US protects corporate freedom as long as it doesn't break any civil laws.
The EU protects personal freedoms as long as they don't break copyright.

As long what MS does respects other's freedoms, it's all good. Making contracts isn't raping babies. Because when you rape babies, you violate another's freedom. You're still confused between rights and choices.

Microsoft? Respect others' freedoms? Split-my-sides-laughing funny.

What my arguments propose is the way of doing business: laisser-faire market. The way everybody on Earth did before the state started to intervene everytime someone were sobbing for their failures.

Ah, so you're in favour of child labour, slavery, people dying in childbirth, no compensation for workers who lose limbs in factory machinery, people dying on the streets, inadequate sanitation, and smog. Because that's what used to happen "before the state started to interfere". I'm glad we're clear on what you're in favour of.

Stop punishing people for their successes.

Conning people is not a "success". It is an admission you can't succeed by acting honestly.

It's not much less distasteful to say that Microsoft should have the right to hold the EU (and presumably any other government) to ransom, than it is to say what I said in the above paragraph.

More fear based argument.

I'd seriously like to know how the argument that if the government has to encode information in proprietary document formats which only one company has control over, that company can easily hold the government to ransom, is "fear-based".

I'd seriously like to know how the argument that if the government has to encode information in proprietary document formats which only one company has control over, that company can easily hold the government to ransom, is "fear-based".

I'd like to know why can't governments set their own internal policies and avoid IT problems. Governments can negociate with MS to deal with this situation. Can they?

There you go. Your argument was based on nothing but fear using words like ransom, control and hold.

> You're still confused between rights and choices.

It is much easier than that. Rights (and duties) are derived from the law. Hence, moral aside, if it you are not breaking any law you have the right, if you are breaking it you don't have the right.

The US (where I presume you write from) also has anti monopoly laws, and has other times stopped big companies to merge just because. So nothing weird going on here.

> What my arguments propose is the way of doing
> business: laisser-faire market. The way everybody
> on Earth did before the state started to intervene
> everytime someone were sobbing for their failures.

The way everybody on earth did before (state's) laws was robbery and murder(s), aka unlawfully.
There is no free market, only regulated one.
Get used to it.

> Stop punishing people for their successes.

Let's punish people for breaking law(s). Being successfull or not is a moot point.

> What MS does with it's software is only MS' business.
> And no one else's business.

What EU does with it's market rules is only EU's business. And no one else's business. If MS want their own market rules to access certain EU markets, they can enter negociation with EU. They'll be more than happy to share their rulemaking at a price.

Why should Microsoft be force to turn over tech that they spent millions to develop to their competitors for free? And their competitors (i.e. OSS) are just going to clone it and give it away for free themselves. What incentive is there for anyone to develop anything, if Big Government can force them to give it away with zero compensation?

MSDN is free because Microsoft *chose* to make it free. If they *chose* to make the protocols in question free, than that's their choice. But you want Big Government to force the issue? In the US, that is know as a "taking", whereby if the government forces a private entity to give something away, then the government itself must provide compensation.

I assume the EU has similar provisions, the only governments that haven't had such provisions have been banana republics that "nationalized" the business of foreign companies for themselves.

Why should MS have a near monopoly not because of the quality of their products, but because they use lock-in tactics?

{ Why should Microsoft be force to turn over tech that they spent millions to develop to their competitors for free? And their competitors (i.e. OSS) are just going to clone it and give it away for free themselves. What incentive is there for anyone to develop anything, if Big Government can force them to give it away with zero compensation? }

Why should the Bell telephone company be forced to turn over tech that they spent millions to develop to their competitors for free? Why should other companies apart from Bell just be allowed to make phones that work with Bell's telephone wires or exchanges? What incentive is there for anyone to develop anything, if Big Government can force them to allow just anyone to come along and try to make a better phone than Bell's phone, or for that matter a better PABX or a better exchange?

Goodness, it wouldn't be long before a better product than Bell's came along, and then Bell would also have to compete in a free market, for heaven's sake!

</sarcasm>

Hint: Many of Microsoft's "secret" protocols are just obscured versions of earlier protocols invented by parties other than Microsoft. They are not inventive at all, and Microsoft most decidedly did NOT spend vast sums to "develop" those protocols, but rather spent only modest sums to obscure protocols invented by someone else.

Edited 2007-03-22 10:54

> if the government forces a private entity to give
> something away, then the government itself must
> provide compensation.

Indeed. EU fill allow MS to access its market. That's the compensation.
And I'll bet MS knows it means money, otherwise they'll have move away from it, right?

{If I build a client app and a server type app, create my own proprietary protocol between those two, for some reason become a "near monopoly" in the industry, then why should I open up my protocol?? }

Because it is a communications protocol.

Every other communications product on the planet must flawlessly inter-operate with similar products made by other manufacturers, this is a requirement mandated by standards. If your radio or your telephone handset didn't comply with open standards and hence work with other communications equipment made by other telecommunications companies, then you would not be allowed to sell your product.

This rule makes it possible to have a free market in telecommunications equipment, with several suppliers of equipment all competing with each other and all equally allowed to offer products for consumers to choose, all guaranteed to work with each other whichever one the consumer chooses.

Why should software be the one exception to this rule, just because it happens to be Microsoft's product?

Because it is a communications protocol.
Every other communications product on the planet must flawlessly inter-operate with similar products made by other manufacturers, this is a requirement mandated by standards.

Your point would be perfectly valid IF the protocol between my client and server was a standard.

As far as I know, there is no standard which dictates, that if I create an e-mail server then all communications between e-mail clients need to use standard X...

If your radio or your telephone handset didn't comply with open standards and hence work with other communications equipment made by other telecommunications companies, then you would not be allowed to sell your product.


So what you are trying to say is, that if I were to create a proprietary html type format which can be hosted on any web server and also create a properietary "Web Browser" to display that file format, then I wouldn't be allowed to sell my Web Browser?!?

{ So what you are trying to say is, that if I were to create a proprietary html type format which can be hosted on any web server and also create a properietary "Web Browser" to display that file format, then I wouldn't be allowed to sell my Web Browser?!? }

Not quite.

What I am trying to say is that if you did an equivalent trick in almost any other industry (particularly more normal communications industires), you would be held in violation of anti-trust and anti-monopoly provisions.

It is like a car maker (say Ford) trying to make a car that can only drive on Ford-built roads, or run only on Ford gas. Most other industries do not tolerate this type of thing happening, and yes in most other industries you are not allowed to sell products that attempt to build a monopoly by locking out competition.

Read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust
and here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in#Lock-in_in_electronics_...

{ Your point would be perfectly valid IF the protocol between my client and server was a standard. }

Not at all. Anti-trust provisions can apply even when there are no sensible standards. My point is perfectly valid in most markets and most situations.

Normally, you don't need to mandate standards, as most manufactuers are happy to have a product that works with stuff from other manufacturers. Take VCRs for example ... there was an intense war at the start between the Beta and VHS standards, and basically VHS won because only one company made Beta VCRs. But even there, lots of companies were allowed to make tapes for both VHS and for Beta ... the were actually encouraged to, and freely available specs were published. In terms of interoperability, you could use either Beta or VHS with any TV station broadcast, and with any TV set, and you could use tapes from a number of different suppliers.

The whole basis of free trade and having a free market economy (aka as "capitalism") is that you have a number of suppliers all making competing products, and consumers can choose which ones they purchase.

Edited 2007-03-23 02:54

> If I build a client app and a server type app,
> create my own proprietary protocol between those
> two, for some reason become a "near monopoly"
> in the industry, then why should I open up
> my protocol??

Because you sell client app and server app as separate products. Sell both client and server a a single product, and nobody will care.

Until, by splitting your proprietary solution into two products, you're breaking EU's market rule about forced sale.

Simple point.