decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
EU Commission Warns MS: They Aren't Doing Enough to Comply
Friday, March 18 2005 @ 12:31 PM EST

Breakthrough! The issue of Open Source being able to interoperate with Microsoft has arrived in the EU conciousness. The BBC is reporting that the EU Commission has sent Microsoft a warning that they aren't doing enough to comply with the sanctions imposed on them for breaking EU anti-trust laws. They paid the fine promptly, but they were also supposed to make the sofware interoperate with competitors. The followup warning alone is refreshing, after the US experience, but look at the issues highlighted:

"The European Commission said the group had failed on four counts. It was difficult for companies that wanted to licence Microsoft data protocols to get access to its documentation.

"Furthermore, companies which wanted to take out a licence would have to pay for an extensive one that also covered items they did not want.

"Another limitation was that developers of open source software, which compete with Microsoft in providing software for server computers, could not gain access to the protocols.

"But the biggest problem, said Mr Todd, was that: 'It would appear that the level of royalties applied would be unjustified.'"

So, at last, the issue is squarely on the table. Open Source software is a competitor of Microsoft, and they must take steps to assure that FOSS can interoperate with Microsoft products. There goes any strategy of isolating FOSS from the mainstream, if the EU Commission follows through.

Microsoft may face daily fines, according to Business Week's coverage:

"Based on the market tests, it doesn't seem to be working at all," said Jonathan Todd, the spokesman for the EU's antitrust office. . . .

"Todd said the EU could impose prohibitive fines of up to 5 percent of the company's annual global sales if it refused to cooperate better.

"'The commission remains patient but there are limits to the patience we are prepared to show,' Todd said. 'The ball is now in Microsoft's court and I am sure they will come back to us shortly on these issues.'"

Microsoft's statement was the usual phony-speak:

"Spokesman Jim Desler confirmed that the company had received feedback from the European Commission about its plans for licensing certain software blueprints. But he would not say what specific changes regulators had asked for.

"Desler said Microsoft was 'grateful to receive the feedback because it allows us to respond promptly and in an appropriate way.'"

Grateful? I'm sure. Actually, *I'm* grateful, but that's probably not what they meant.

UPDATE:

I thought you might like to see the January 25, 2005 draft Microsoft Work Group Server Protocol Program License Agreement [PDF] at issue. Here's one point of view on some of the language in the license. Also, on the stiff royalties, here's an article from February in which Samba's Jeremy Allison highlights the issue, and the article says both he and FSF contacted the EU Commission about the matter:

"The co-founder of Samba, the open source file and print server software, is due to contact the European Commission (EC) in the next couple of weeks to lobby for changes to Microsoft's proposed server interoperability licence. Speaking to ZDNet UK this week, Samba co-creator Jeremy Allison launched a damning attack on the proposed licence, calling the fees that would be demanded under it 'monstrous'.

"Last week, a lawyer representing the Free Software Foundation said the licence that Microsoft proposed following last year's EU antitrust ruling is not compatible with open source software, as it requires royalty payments for every copy sold and stipulates that programs which are built using the licensed information are closed source."

So, this didn't just happen to happen, and now we know, if we feel grateful, who to thank.


  


EU Commission Warns MS: They Aren't Doing Enough to Comply | 78 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Excellent news for the world in general
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 01:04 PM EST
Even discounting FOSS (which I don't at all), this is good for competition,
consumers, and those who truly innovate and don't just try to patent the
wheelbarrow.

Looks likes it's time for Microsoft to finally grow up and become a fair and
productive member of society. Let's hope the EU doesn't let them whine their
way out - again.

[ Reply to This | # ]

How would fines be used?
Authored by: dracoverdi on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 01:06 PM EST
If the EU did impose monthly fines what would the money be used for? Would it be
used to help Microsoft competitors harmed by the monopoly? Maybe it could be
donated to FSF.

---
The problem with ignorance is that the afflicted are unaware of their ailment

[ Reply to This | # ]

They really are grateful...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 01:09 PM EST
...the same way you're grateful when the traffic cop gives you a warning for
speeding instead of a fine.

Being grateful you're still getting away with it doesn't mean you're interesting

in following the law.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT, anyone?
Authored by: overshoot on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 01:18 PM EST
Of course it's always good to make <a
href="http://www.example.com">links</a> clickable. Assuming
you post as html, that is.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is this the same EU Commission that passed Software patents as A item?
Authored by: troll on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 01:34 PM EST
Is this the same EC we dislike for forcing Software Patent Directive as A-Item down our collective European throats?

Let us make up our mind.
Do we like them or not?
Are they undemocratic arogant stupid ....(The rest of the sentence is self-censored)
Or are they our alies in fight against MS?.
Were they really bribed or bullied by big corporations (especially MS) as some people suggested in a discussion in the linked article?

Yours truly ...

[ Reply to This | # ]

EU Commission Warns MS: They Aren't Doing Enough to Comply
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 01:54 PM EST
I feel a much larger issue is being overlooked here and that the EU and others
are basically on track but still missing the point.
Microsoft would prefer we all forget everything from the past and continue to
look at computers and the associated protocals used by them as something that
needs "patent" protection. Microsoft would rather we forget that
computers are primarily a new and enhanced communication device, not much
different than the radios, TV, phones etc that came before it and that somehow
Microsoft is deserving of being able to have its own private segregated
"radio wave" reserved for its products alone.
That is totally contrary to everything that has been done in the past in regards
to communication devices.
The computer is primarily a communication device and as such standards need to
be established and adhered to to allow free and open communication among all
computer based systems.
I sincerely hope that message begins to be understood by the various world
legislative bodies.

[ Reply to This | # ]

How exactly can Microsoft charge royalties for use of protocols or specifications?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 03:19 PM EST
Protocols, standards and specifications like software are
supposedly not patentable in Europe. How then is Microsoft
able to charge for protocol use? OK they can charge
royalties for copyright of software libraries that they
sell to others, but they have no right to ask for
royalties for the use of the protocol itself.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Possible $2 billion Fine - Ouch!
Authored by: SilverWave on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 04:24 PM EST
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D88TFJU80.htm?campaign_id=apn_home_
down

"For its fiscal year ending June 30, Microsoft has said it expects revenue
of about $40 billion -- 5 percent of which would be about $2 billion."

Everett McKinley Dirksen Quotes
"A billion here and a billion there, and soon you're talking about real
money. "

---
"They [each] put in one hour of work,
but because they share the end results
they get nine hours... for free"

Firstmonday 98 interview with Linus Torvalds

[ Reply to This | # ]

EU Commission Warns MS: They Aren't Doing Enough to Comply
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 05:24 PM EST
I had better not read their license agreement, because then I would be
contaminated and wouldn't be able to make a living writing programs any more.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I don't trust 'em
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 05:54 PM EST
This could just be a shakedown by the EU.

It's not like the EU is less corrupt than the US.

[ Reply to This | # ]

CORRECTIONS here
Authored by: belzecue on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 09:52 PM EST
PJ: consciousness for "conciousness"

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • CORRECTIONS here - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 10:06 PM EST
Implications of MS & Patent
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 11:40 PM EST
I wonder if MS have realized what they may achieve if they succeed in making
patents enforced around the world. Then only way I can develop without hindrance
may be the opensource method - as this comes with a patent portfolio.

By unleashing the patent nightmare, could all the small developers (who will
never get enough patents of their own) be forced to join and use Open Source?

[ Reply to This | # ]

EU Commission Warns MS: They Aren't Doing Enough to Comply
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 19 2005 @ 11:17 AM EST
Another excellent article on the proposed licence, from zdnet.
Thanks to www.osnews.com.
Li nky

[ Reply to This | # ]

A fair royalty
Authored by: llosee on Saturday, March 19 2005 @ 12:52 PM EST
Laimlaw has an interesting perspective on how this should work. Link Basically he says if something is being unbundled from Microsoft software and a royalty is charged for third parties, then the Microsoft product (unbundled) cost should be reduced by the amount of the royalty. llosee

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • A fair royalty - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 19 2005 @ 04:31 PM EST
Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )