|
|
| The EU Commission's Decision on Microsoft |
 |
|
Thursday, April 22 2004 @ 11:13 PM EDT
|
The EU Commission has released its decision in the Microsoft antitrust case, and you can read it, all 300 some pages of legalese, if you like that sort of thing. Personally, I can't wait. Really. If you'd like to know what Microsoft indignantly says about it, you can do that too. They note that the EU Commission has rejected their desire to maintain their intellectual property for their own use. They don't want to have to share. It seems they are also very concerned about us customers and our need for dominant firms to be able to continue to innovate and integrate. I think with all the money they spend on lawyers and PR, they ought to be able to come up with something more believable than that. Oh, and the economy will suffer if Microsoft has to play fair. Huh? I must have misread that last part.
Or, you can read all about how Microsoft tried to squeeze their new best friend, Sun, out of the server market and even read some emails about how patient consumers have to be to put up with the lousy software they offer us: "That ruling found that the Redmond, Wash., company had failed to give rivals information that they needed to compete fairly in the market for server software and that it had been offering the Windows operating system on the condition that it come bundled with Windows Media Player, stifling competition. . . . "The report also includes a memo written for Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates by C++ General Manager Aaron Contorer in 1997 that describes one of the reasons why he felt Microsoft's Windows operating system was becoming a must-have product for client PC vendors.
"Contorer wrote that end users stuck with Windows, despite the operating system's shortcomings, based on the high costs of abandoning heavy investments already made in APIs.
"'The Windows API is so broad, so deep and so functional that most ISVs (independent software vendors) would be crazy not to use it. And it is so deeply embedded in the source code of many Windows apps that there is a huge switching cost to using a different operating system, instead,' the e-mail reads.
"'It is this switching cost that has given the customers the patience to stick with Windows through all our mistakes, our buggy drivers, our high TCO (total cost of ownership), our lack of a sexy vision, at times, and many other difficulties,' the e-mail said. 'Customers constantly evaluate other desktop platforms, (but) it would be so much work to move over that they hope we just improve Windows rather than force them to move.'
"The commission also quotes an internal memo from Microsoft Senior Vice President Bob Muglia to the Developer Tools division, dated August 16, 1996, as saying: 'In short, without this exclusive franchise, called the Windows API, we would have been dead a long time ago.'" This is why the Commission is telling MS to open up and share. It's their APIs, and they don't want to. Then they would actually have to improve their software instead of just imprisoning their customers. Didn't the most recent "independent" study say switching from Windows to GNU/Linux makes the TCO of Linux higher than just staying with Windows and upgrading? First they make it too costly to switch and then they say that extra cost is a good reason not to switch. I get it. It's not a bug. It's a feature. And the economy will suffer if they have to quit this? I don't think so, guys. Microsoft's economy might suffer, but the rest of us will get along very nicely. I guess you could sum it up that Microsoft has been bad for so long, they feel an entitlement. So, no remorse. No mea culpa. Instead, this is going to go to court, it seems. That will be a fun case to follow closely.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 12:19 AM EDT |
| Please put mistakes here, so I can correct easily. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 12:23 AM EDT |
PJ as usual you do have a way with words.i havent finished reading yet,but i
intend to try to finish tomorrow.so bugs are features ?
i about fell out of my chair on that one from laughing so hard
---
br3n
irc.fdfnet.net #groklaw
"sco's proof of one million lines of code are just as believable as the
raelians proof of the cloned baby"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ujay on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 12:27 AM EDT |
I'm only up to page 25 of the 300 page doc, but I have already decided that one
has to be a devotee of transcribing sanskrit to truly enjoy reading a document
of this nature.
Nonetheless, it has been an informative read so far. I'll tackle the rest when
my frontal lobes stop draining out of my nose.
---
Programmer: A biological system designed to convert coffee and cheesies into
code[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 12:50 AM EDT |
I'm a Linux user and as much as I don't like Microsoft I
have to say that this is a bad decision.
Microsoft shouldn't have to open up their APIs.
Like it or not, it's their code and it should be their
right not to show it to others.
Instead, EU Commission should concentrate on the real problem.
Software patents. Make software patents irrelevant in Europe
and the effect will be the same, without forcing Microsoft
to show *their* code.
Mike[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Let MS accelerate it's own demise - Authored by: RedBarchetta on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 01:04 AM EDT
- APIs are not Code - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 01:07 AM EDT
- Monopolies have to play by different rules - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 01:31 AM EDT
- Commoditization - Authored by: nonameisgood on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 01:40 AM EDT
- APIs are ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 04:07 AM EDT
- Closed API's are nonsensical. - Authored by: Harry Clayton on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 04:28 AM EDT
- Yes, patents are the real threat!!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 06:09 AM EDT
- The EU Commission's Decision - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 09:52 AM EDT
- The EU Commission's Decision - Authored by: John Hasler on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 11:06 AM EDT
- Microsoft should document APIs and guarantee they work without side effects - Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 12:34 PM EDT
- The EU Commission's Decision - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 02:34 PM EDT
- The EU Commission's Decision - Authored by: tanstaafl on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 05:25 PM EDT
- The EU Commission's Decision - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 25 2004 @ 10:08 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 12:50 AM EDT |
I suspect MS' MCPP initiative will also be used to affect future TCO
calculations. I looks as though MS will say the EU and DOJ forced their hand.
Now, regarding TCO...
First they make it too costly to switch and
then they say that extra cost is a good reason not to switch. I get it. It's not
a bug. It's a feature.
Help cut through the MS deception with
this handy TCO
tool:
http://www.penguinpros.com/Tools/tools_index.html
There's an
overview article by the author as well at:
http://www.penguinpros.com/Research/GetTheTruth-Part1.html
The tool is free
(licensed under Creative Commons) for all to use, modify, etc. Even for
commercial use.
So, let's continue the Groklaw tradition and fight FUD
with FACTS!!!
What the default values of this tool illustrates, is that the
cost to STAY with Windows is enough to justify any move to an alternative
platform -- in this case, Linux. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Kai on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 12:54 AM EDT |
Ballmer and Gates are always going on about the TCO and they've paid
"independant" studies that "prove" Windows is cheaper, but
then I in this article (http://news.com.com/2100-1016-5197411.html) , they go
and say this:
"It is this switching cost that has given the customers the patience to
stick with Windows through all our mistakes, our buggy drivers, our high TCO
(total cost of ownership), our lack of a sexy vision, at times, and many other
difficulties," the e-mail said. "Customers constantly evaluate other
desktop platforms, (but) it would be so much work to move over that they hope we
just improve Windows rather than force them to move."
Microsoft are hyped-up, hypocritical, monopolistic, sleezy, cunning, greedy
bastards and I hope the EU really sticks it to them, unlike the US DoJ who don't
have the guts to do anything real about the problem, probably because they're
corrupt and there's money going under the table.
---
Another (Western) Australian who is interested.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: LvilleDebugger on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 01:09 AM EDT |
Man, do I feel their pain.
I could switch away from my Linux Desktop, but then where would I be? Unable to
route live video straight from my mini-DV camcorder through the standard output
of a capture utility straight into an MPEG compressor like ffmpeg, and then a
piped tee into a full-screen video playback, so I can put the pedal to the
silicon and see what my dual Athlons can *really* do, essentially a whole TV
studio in an boring beige box. Well, unable, that is, unless I bought about
$4000 in proprietary software that I don't get to touch past a certain point.
I could switch away from this sometimes awkward-to-configure Linux desktop, but
then I wouldn't be able to switch monitor resolutions with a single keystroke,
and jack my screen up to "teaching font" when people are crowded
around my workstation to see how something works, then shrink it down when I
need a lot of information in front of me.
I could switch away from Linux, but when something went wrong, I wouldn't have
any confidence that no matter what it was I could either find a support note on
it, or delve straight into the source code to root out the bug myself for the
good of all humanity forever.
I could switch away from Linux, but then I'd have to contend with code that
doesn't execute as if it were chipped out of pure diamond by a crazed gang of
Turing/Hopper-worshippers who treat every subroutine as their own children, but
allow others to modify and improve their progeny to their hearts' content, so
long as they preserve that freedom.
I could switch away from Linux, but then my computing environment wouldn't be
designed by the sort of people who read Ken Thompson's "Trusting
Trust" lecture as a call to demand that you are able to know exactly what
code you live with.
You know, there's something to this criticism of being stuck with a product that
would be too much trouble to switch away from. I find this to be true of Linux
every day.
So Linux and Windows do have something in common, after all. Just not in the
same way. As PJ says, "Words to Live By."
Linux, I am "Happy to be stuck on you." (1980's song (Huey Lewis?))
---
Alan Canon (LvilleDebugger)
--
Add value to your Groklaw comments, and get 'em read! Change the default subject
heading![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: eamacnaghten on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 04:30 AM EDT |
Please excuse the off topic post.....
Patents are rearing their ugly head here (Europe) again. We sort of won the
first round, this is the second.
There have been a lot of work done by the pro-partent lobby (Microsoft and
others) and they have convionced a lot of Euro civil servants that Europe cannot
compete with the US on software unless we have a US style of patenting software,
methods, concepts etc. A lot of MEPs are now turning being pro-patents to such
an extent that their is a general feeling in some quarters that patents are a
done deal.
If that is the case we are in damage limitation mode, and some thing can be
rescued here, ie - not to have quite so idiotic patenting here as there is in
the US. However, EVERYBODY's support is required.
Whart to do? - Write to your MEP - but DO NOT HARASS. Also write to ONLY your
MEP (as others are not meant to deal with your problems). Include your name and
address, anonymous requests always look suspicious. Keep it polite, keep it
nice. It is a good idea to point out the financial penalties of silly patenting
rather than the dogmas. If you are running a small business and silly patenting
could effect your profitability and your ability to employ people that is waht
your MEP is most likely to react to. They will probably not care (nor
understand) the issues regarding free-as-in-speach software, they will only be
interesting in the economies of it.
Remember - do not be obnoxious - that will only put the MEP against you (and
probably more pro-patent).
But please - write them.
(See www.ffii.org for Foundation for a Free Infirmation Infrastructure - to
which I am not affiliated).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jude on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 07:18 AM EDT |
| And the economy will suffer if they have to quit this?
That depends
on whose opinion one solicits regarding the state of the economy.
I have
long suspected that powerful people in the U.S. government don't really
give
a rat's patootie about most of us, and only consider the opinions of
people
they socialize with. Has any Groklaw reader ever had a chance to
chat with a U.S.
representative or senator at a party? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: joeblakesley on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 07:51 AM EDT |
I'm reading it now. Funny enough, I had Groklaw open in one window of my web
browser to look at later and was just sending an email to my MEP in the other
window suggesting the €C be reported to the ombudsmen for refusing to release
copies of the CEC v. M$ decision to the public in violation of the Charter of
the EU. Before sending it I flipped to Groklaw and found this...
The reason I have been trying to get hold of the decision is to substantiate the
rumors (which I orgignally thought were untrue but now seem to not be) that this
will force developers of SMB/CIFS-compliant software to pay Microsoft for the
privilege while fining MS a negligible (from MS's PoV) amount which goes into
the EC's coffers. That is, as opposed to (as I thought the EC meant) the EC
compulsorily public-domaining any exclusive intellectual exploitation rights
(e.g.: patents) MS has on creating SMB/CIFS-compatible systems.
BTW, for those who do not know the background wrt to patents in general in the
EU:
The patents that MS have on SMB are not legal and should not have been granted.
The European Parliament has voted for information patents such as this *not* to
be legalised (following pressure from pro-human-rights, pro-liberty and
pro-free-software organisations), but the EC (who took this case against MS) are
trying to over-ride the rule of law by passing a law legalising them in
violation of the will of the elected body--they claim this is because they have
to legalise such patents as part of the international TRIPS treaty (but if you
read TRIPS it actually says to are not allowed to as opposed to have to).
I have not read the decision yet, but if the rumours are true it will make lots
of money for M$ & €C and cause lots of problems for companies and citizens
of the EC.
---
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SpinyNorman on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 08:24 AM EDT |
Gates & Co. have been making the "Yes, but or monopoly is necessary for
innovation and the economy and truth, justice and the American Way" speech
for quite a while. It is a sin of omission. Changing their behavior would be
devestating to M$ innovation and the M$ economy. It is also an exageration. If
M$ were to suddenly disappear it would have a devestating, albeit brief, impact
on the US economy - mostly from hysterical "analysts" claiming that
the world had come to an end.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Nivuahc on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 08:34 AM EDT |
| Q: How many Micro$oft engineers does it take to change a lightbulb?
A:
None. They just change the standard to dark
A few years ago, that
used to be really funny. I'm not laughing so much about it these
days...
---
My Doctor says I have A.D.D... He just doesn't understand.
It's not like... Hey! Look at that chicken! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rongage on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 09:22 AM EDT |
I don't remember where I read it, and it was some time ago (a couple of years),
but I recall seeing something like the following in an article somewhere...
"...If Microsoft were to totally cease receiving any income today, they
could continue to exist for another 10 years and they would not have to trim
back ANY of their operations (salaries, business centers, etc) to do
so..."
I believe they are hoarding too much cash to be able to claim that their being
"forced" to abide by some anti-trust settlement would "hurt the
economy" - they've already hurt the economy by concentrating all that cash
in one location.
---
Ron Gage - Linux Consultant
LPI1, MCP, A+, NET+
Pontiac, Michigan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cananian on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 11:01 AM EDT |
| The WINE project deserves a mention here, as
well: by reimplementing the Windows APIs, they lower switching costs for
customers. You can even recompile your program against WineLib and get a
Linux-native binary from your windows source! This really ought to be better
publicized: I bet companies don't realize how easy switching might be. You can
pay companies like CodeWeavers to help you
switch, too.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- WINE - Authored by: josmith42 on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 11:32 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 11:05 AM EDT |
since the first antitrust suit, i've been saying that the most important
concession is for M$ to publish their 'secret' APIs (like a lot of things
related
to MS, their existence was once thoroughly denied, and now their existence is
commonly acknowledged)--this isn't even Open Source, just common
practice for most software companies hoping to gain market share...not
convicted monopolies who want to solidify their hold on their 'proprietary
system'...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: davcefai on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 12:41 PM EDT |
Others here have possibly made this point, but not directly.
Microsoft are deliberately NOT separating the OS from applications. It has
always been my understanding that the Operating System is there to service
requests from the Applications. Therefore the API must be known by the authors
of applications.
Instead, MS are hiding the API to give their own apps writers an unfair
advantage.
The judge in the MS trial obviously grasped this and hence wanted to break up MS
for this reason.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- OS vs Apps - Authored by: tanstaafl on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 05:52 PM EDT
- OS vs Apps - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 25 2004 @ 10:12 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 01:12 PM EDT |
I read somewhere that Microsoft employs more lawyers than programmers. Does
anyone remember the real numbers for this?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 02:53 PM EDT |
| New Scientist has a new article noting that "Unpublished Data
Reverses
Risk-benefit of Drugs" posted at:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994920
The new study
finds that in areas such as "the effects of anti-depressant
drugs on children"
drug companies in the UK have not been publishing
results that "suggest some
are both ineffective andpotentially harmful."
This suggests that perhaps
Microsoft has been acting similarly and also
suppressing studies that do not
demonstrate Windows is cheaper to
install and maintain than Linux. Just a
thought!
Statistics often prove what their researchers want them to prove.
--Mike Perry
http://www.InklingBooks.com/inklingblog/
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ed L. on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 05:14 PM EDT |
| Its just that I'll need a little help collecting the dates to prove it. I'll
start with the postulate that two of the most influential and far-reaching
innovations in the computing industry this millenium are Intel's Itanium
achitecture, which breaks moderately cleanly with x86, and AMD's Opteron AMD64,
which cleanly extends it.
I note with some interest that last quarter
turned AMD's first profit in over three years. And that the first thing AMD did
thereafter was to join OSDL. AMD's milestone was made on the back of sales of
Opteron server chips. Despite promises that 64-bit Windows would greet Opteron
at launch, MicroSoft has yet to release a 64-bit operating system for these
machines; one might suppose that the vast majority of these servers are booting
GNU/Linux.
I'd like to collect some hard numbers to either support or
refute this hypothesis. Where would AMD be today (profit wise) without
Linux?
Likewise, I'd like to look back into the release history of Itanium.
I believe that Windows 2003 64-bit server runs on Itanium today, but does anyone
recall where Windows was when Itanium made her debut? I know Linux was there for
the dance, but was there anyone else?
I hope this thread doesn't degenerate
into an Intel/AMD flamefest. That is what the hardware sites are for. Both
architectures are innovative in different ways, but "innovative" alone doesn't
pay any bills. Answers to the above questions could either refute or support
Remond's contention that their closed-source monopoly is good for competitive
innovation. Can anyone help with dates and numbers?
Thanks!
---
"Proprietary software is harmful, not because it is a form of
competition, but because it is a form of combat among the citizens of our
society." (RMS) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kpl on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 08:00 PM EDT |
Billy G. is always going on about "Innovation" to my mind
any way, it always
seems wrong and dirty to
equate the words M$ and Innovation, they just
don't seem to go together.
What they are very skillful at is selling
PR.
---
--------------------
mv sco /dev/null
-------------------- [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 29 2004 @ 05:52 PM EDT |
Call me cynical, but if Microsoft wants to enter the EU market, then it ought to
follow the rules that the market gives them - if they don't like the rules then
simple: leave. If you don't like the terms of the EULA that comes with
Microsoft Windows do you have the right to demand it ought to be changed in your
favour? (How long do you think Microsoft will give you?)
If Microsoft
claim that if only they have to supply their APIs then the EU is being in breech
of free trade, then the exact same argument bounces back on them: how can others
freely compete with their applications if their [special] APIs are secret? (The
words "Kettle", "Pot" and "black" come to mind.)
I have a question: do
American's expect to be immediately arrested on setting foot in Saudi Arabia
because they had an alcoholic party in their own American home, because such
parties are illegal in Saudi Arabia? (And yet Americans are perfectly happy to
arrest a foreign national on his arrival for doing something totally legal in
his country which is illegal in the USA - the question that comes to my mind is:
"Why is it illegal in the USA (the "Land of the Free")?" Must have been
patented! ^_^ Did the corporation$ have a hand in this?)
SCO have
found out that Europe works in a totally different way: the German branch was
told to put up or shut up - they shut up (says a lot about the SCO case in my
eyes). So why does Microsoft expect otherwise? Do they think thay have extra
mu$cle?
"...the Decision undercuts Trans-Atlantic coordination by
adopting a remedy specifically rejected by the US DoJ after more than five years
of careful review..."
I seem to remember that a separation of
Application and OS departments was decreed but overturned at a later date; what
was to have been a major fine got turned into little more than a slap on the
wrist and a "don't do it again". (A change of administration occured around the
same time?)
"Finally, the Decision takes the unprecedented step of
requiring that innovative features be removed from the product...in Europe
without the media playback functionality that was designed as part of the
operating system..."
I'm confused...wasn't the media player supposed to
be an "Application", not part of the OS?
"Moreover, requiring Microsoft
to develop and market a degraded version of its flagship product tramples on
Microsoft's copyrights and its right to control its own trademark, effectively
creating a compulsory licensing regime that forces Microsoft to apply the
Windows trademark to a product that plainly is not Windows."
I would
also like to point at this stage that the US Government has already [in the
past] degreed (prior art!) that Microsoft "market a degraded version" and ship a
version of Windows to Europe (and anywhere in the world not America, ie export)
that has an "innovative feature removed from the product" to be replaced by an
inferior version: namely in the area of encryption - domestic versions could
have 128 bit encryption, but European version were crippled to less {I don't
know if this is still the case}. I don't remember Microsoft issuing press
releases/complaints that Europeans were been sold an inferior product because of
US Government restrictions.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
