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 v. Microsoft - News
Monday, June 06 2005 @ 09:55 AM EDT

Microsoft is still sparring with the EU Commission, according to a Commission press release today on latest developments. The Commission’s March 2004 decision regarding Microsoft and interoperability requires Microsoft to disclose "complete and accurate interface documentation which would allow non-Microsoft work group servers to achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers."

Here's what they are currently sparring about. I hope you are sitting down: Microsoft doesn't want code developed by recipients of its interoperability information to be able to release code under "an open source license." The Commission's position is that if its decision is upheld, it will immediately require exactly that, for protocols that "do not embody innovations".

Zounds.

Wait a sec. Microsoft? Innovations? They can only keep the protocols propretary if they can prove they are innovative? What are the odds of that?

The Commission rejected Microsoft's earlier proposals on implementation of the decision regarding interoperability, because the Commission felt they were not "reasonable and non-discriminatory." It seems the Commission cares about Free and Open Source developers being able to interoperate. How refreshing is that? Unless you are Microsoft, that is. Remember Massachusetts and their weasling about how "reasonable and non-discriminatory" doesn't mean you have to let FOSS in, that "royalty-free" is sufficient? The EU, in contrast, gets it. If Microsoft's number one competition is not allowed to interoperate, then what is the point of compelling the monopolist to offer interoperability information to everyone else?

Duh.

The Commission says today that it has received Microsoft's latest proposals on how they plan to comply with the EU Commission decision and the Commission will now "market test" them, and they say it is "determined" that all elements of the Commission's decision regarding Microsoft and interoperability be implemented. Commissioner Neelie Kroes says, "This includes the ability for developers of open source software to take advantage of the remedy."

Naturally, Microsoft isn't so keen on that last part. It has agreed to some changes, but here's how the press release describes the amazing sticking point, according to the press release:

Microsoft considers that the software source code developed by recipients of the interoperability information that implements the Microsoft protocols should not be published under a so-called “open source licence”. The Commission nevertheless considers that, if the Court of First Instance rules in favour of the Commission in the pending application for annulment filed by Microsoft (case T-201/04), this should be possible for the protocols that do not embody innovations.

The Commission is committed to ensuring that this will be the case immediately after any such favourable ruling by the Court.

So now, there begins a process of evaluating "the innovative character of the protocols at stake, and identifying appropriate comparables to verify whether the remuneration that Microsoft proposes to charge is reasonable."

Microsoft must be breaking out in hives.

UPDATE: Of course, there is a catch. No one ever just tells the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The International Herald Tribune says that what really happened is that they did a deal. Microsoft agreed to a worldwide solution, and the Commission agreed to wait for the court to rule before requiring that open source be allowed to play. Here's the catch: it could take 5 years for that court process to run its course:

The European competition commissioner, Neelie Kroes, has agreed to suspend a part of the historic antitrust ruling last year against Microsoft until after the company's appeal is concluded in the coming years, the commission said Monday.

  But the commission has also insisted that part of the ruling be applied globally, not just in Europe.

  In addition to being fined €497 million, or $610 million, Microsoft was also ordered to share details about its Windows operating system with rival software makers, including so-called open source developers, to allow them to build programs that function properly with Windows.

  Under an informal agreement reached last week with Microsoft, the commission agreed to exclude open-source software developers from the benefits of this remedy for the time being. In return, Microsoft vowed to apply the remedy globally.

Now, I'm the one breaking out in hives. Here's the press release in full.

******************************

Brussels, 6th June 2005

Competition: Commission to market test new proposals from Microsoft on interoperability

The European Commission is to market test new proposals it has received from Microsoft outlining how the company intends to implement the Commission’s March 2004 Decision in the field of interoperability (see IP/04/382). The Decision required Microsoft to disclose complete and accurate interface documentation which would allow non-Microsoft work group servers to achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers. The Commission is putting Microsoft’s proposals to industry in order to assess them in full. Subject to the results of this market test, work group server developers interested in receiving interoperability information from Microsoft will be able to develop and sell their products on a global basis. Microsoft has also recognised the need to enhance the options available to recipients by creating a range of packages of information from which they can choose according to their needs. Furthermore, there will be a category of interoperability information that will be disclosed royalty-free. The Commission remains committed to ensuring that in due course it will become possible to use certain interoperability information from Microsoft in software products distributed under an open source licence.

“I am happy that Microsoft has recognised certain principles which must underlie its implementation of the Commission’s Decision” said European Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes. “I remain determined to ensure that all elements of the Decision are properly implemented. This includes the ability for developers of open source software to take advantage of the remedy” she added.

The Commission’s Decision of March 2004 requires Microsoft to disclose interoperability information to developers of work group server operating systems. Following rejection of Microsoft’s application for suspension of this requirement by the Court of First Instance in December 2004 (see MEMO/04/305), the Commission was concerned that the conditions imposed by Microsoft for access to, and use of that information were not reasonable and non-discriminatory.

Microsoft has now agreed to make a number of changes to these conditions. Microsoft has agreed that it will allow development and sale of interoperable products on a worldwide basis. Microsoft has also recognised that a category of the information which it is obliged to disclose will be royalty-free.

Microsoft considers that the software source code developed by recipients of the interoperability information that implements the Microsoft protocols should not be published under a so-called “open source licence”. The Commission nevertheless considers that, if the Court of First Instance rules in favour of the Commission in the pending application for annulment filed by Microsoft (case T-201/04), this should be possible for the protocols that do not embody innovations.

The Commission is committed to ensuring that this will be the case immediately after any such favourable ruling by the Court.

Microsoft’s proposals will now be market tested in order to enable the Commission to make a final assessment. In this context, the Trustee foreseen by the Decision will, as part of its mandate in assisting the Commission in monitoring Microsoft’s compliance, provide technical advice to the Commission. This will include evaluating the innovative character of the protocols at stake, and identifying appropriate comparables to verify whether the remuneration that Microsoft proposes to charge is reasonable.  


  


EU Commission v. Microsoft - News | 253 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
FUD from Microsoft India
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 06 2005 @ 10:10 AM EDT
Nikabl e Click

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections
Authored by: IRJustman on Monday, June 06 2005 @ 10:11 AM EDT
Post 'em if ya got 'em!

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT linkage
Authored by: IRJustman on Monday, June 06 2005 @ 10:12 AM EDT
Post 'em if ya got 'em, and make 'em clickable, and remember to post as HTML.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The innovation card
Authored by: DebianUser on Monday, June 06 2005 @ 10:17 AM EDT
I'm sure that from their point of view, all of their protocols and
interfaces are innovative. Since that is basically an undefined marketing term,
the effect of that phrase is to end up with nothing being disclosed at all.

The prospect is just endless wrangling over whether xxx is
"innovative", and no progress on interoperability.

[ Reply to This | # ]

EU Commission v. Microsoft - News
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 06 2005 @ 10:27 AM EDT
Microsoft considers that the software source code developed by recipients of the interoperability information that implements the Microsoft protocols should not be published under a so-called “open source licence”.

Well, we could always call it something else.

-Wang-Lo.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Innovation - puhlese...
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 06 2005 @ 10:28 AM EDT
Microsoft's version of innovation is any corruption of a standard that makes its
code incompatible with the standard implementation. I see a long argument
brewing over what constitutes proprietary "innovation" versus
corruption while MS continues doing whatever it chooses to do in the EU.
Chris

[ Reply to This | # ]

Reverse Engineering
Authored by: cab15625 on Monday, June 06 2005 @ 10:41 AM EDT
Maybe the EU could protect open source projects that reverse engineer the interfaces from MS persecution/prosecution. As I understand it, potential grief from MS is a shadow looming over projects like SAMBA. If such projects could find a shelter in EU, that might be almost as good as forcing MS to play nice.

This (wired) is the sort of worry I'm thinking of.

I don't think MS would find this much more palatable, but it would be fun to watch EU propose it as an alternative.

Does anyone know how the EU views reverse engineering?

---
Slackin' since 4.0

[ Reply to This | # ]

EU Commission v. Microsoft - News
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 06 2005 @ 11:03 AM EDT
I don't understand what innovation has to do with this. If the protocol is made
publicly available on a royalty-free basis, then why innovation could be a
reason to deny open source access to the protocol?

[ Reply to This | # ]

There are no innovative APIs. None.
Authored by: aug24 on Monday, June 06 2005 @ 11:07 AM EDT
Any innovation takes place in the back end. All APIs do is enable
inter-operability between programs.

This is a totally false argument, and is presumably the best they could come up
with.

Justin.

---
--
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What are they going to be licensing?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 06 2005 @ 11:19 AM EDT
Is it copyright? No, no code is being reproduced. No documentation is being
photocopied, necessarily. This is simply a case of microsoft needing to pass on
some literature, once, for a fee. Thats it.

Is it patents? Maybe, but I don't see any patent numbers. So where's the beef?

Before negotiating licence terms the EU should identify what rights Microsoft is
actually being asked to give up. I say none, therefore MS cannot ask for those
rights to be protected. End of.

SJG

[ Reply to This | # ]

Neelie Kroes is not somebody to mess with
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 06 2005 @ 11:25 AM EDT
I can tell you that, based on her reputation cq resume her in the Netherlands.

She bites!!..

[ Reply to This | # ]

Re: Mass -- RF is better than RAND
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 06 2005 @ 12:53 PM EDT
Without commenting on the "Massachusetts weaseling" aspect, in general
royalty-free is better for FOSS than reasanble and non-discriminatory. Witness
the W3C patent policy discussions of a year+ ago.
/rich $alz, too lazy to create an account.

[ Reply to This | # ]

EU Commission v. Microsoft - News
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 06 2005 @ 01:51 PM EDT
My favorite bit is where most of the sentances about Linux use the word
"might" - example:

"Skills on Linux might not be available easily..."

This implies that either he hasn't bothered to look at Linux, or that he has,
and knows little to nothing about it.

I also like that under security, he dosen't mention anything about Windows XP-
he knows it's just too bad to defend.

Zimbel

[ Reply to This | # ]

Embracing and extending the definition of "viral"...
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 06 2005 @ 01:59 PM EDT
And they call the GPL viral...

"Microsoft considers that the software source code developed by recipients
of the interoperability information that implements the Microsoft protocols
should not be published under a so-called “open source licence”."

So if I receive some of their 'interoperability information', say to let my web
page work correctly with their non-standard browser, then I later develop a very
useful program to analyse nitrate absorbtion in agricultural use, and want to be
able to access it from the field via a browser, they think they should have the
right to dictate how I can license and distribute that.

"We're all for interoperability as long as you do it our way and don't try
to let anyone else use it."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Clarifying Register article
Authored by: MathFox on Monday, June 06 2005 @ 03:03 PM EDT
The Register has an interesting article with a quote from the EU commissioner:
"I remain determined to ensure that all elements of the Decision are properly implemented. This includes the ability for developers of open source software to take advantage of the remedy."
So, MS's problems are not over yet!

---
When people start to comment on the form of the message, it is a sign that they have problems to accept the truth of the message.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Not to put any dampeners on the atmosphere, but I'm pretty sure the EC is after the money
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 06 2005 @ 04:11 PM EDT
From the beginning, I have not seen the European Commission go for anything else
but money. This is the same group of people that wants to implement software
patents in Europe because it's supposedly 'good for business.' Putting pressure
on Microsoft only serves their own pockets.

It's really too bad because I voted FOR the European constitution in hopes of
ending this crap.

[ Reply to This | # ]

EU to suspend part of Microsoft ruling
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Monday, June 06 2005 @ 07:16 PM EDT
http://www.iht. com/articles/2005/06/06/yourmoney/msft.php

[ Reply to This | # ]

Two points
Authored by: EireannX on Monday, June 06 2005 @ 09:39 PM EDT
First up, a lot of comments seem to suggest that the EU is going to back down on
this for some strange reason. But it might be worthwhile to look at this as a
Boeing vs Airbus scenario. Microsoft is an American company, with satellite
offices around the globe. European developed software would be either open
source or closed source built on a Microsoft or Open platform. Those who build
on a Microsoft platform, and those who build Open source will face a fairer
playing field once Microsoft is forced to share the knowledge. No European
software industry will be disadvantaged by opening up the protocols.

Secondly, if Microsoft are allowed to exclude Open source licences from the
information, who actually receives the information? Apple and a few variants of
Unix? Maybe if they give it to Sun there would be impetus enough to prevent them
from opening Solaris? They would still be excluding their major competitors from
the mix and possibly diluting their potential, as the closed Unices will be able
to interoperate better with Microsoft.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Microsoft antitrust remedy proposal wins over EU" - Which Court Decision?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 12:04 AM EDT

But Commissioner Kroes told reporters on the sidelines of an International Competition Network meeting in Bonn, Germany, that the Commission would have to wait until a court decision this spring to require Microsoft to provide an open-source licence.

Microsoft has said it doesn't want to give free access to software code on which it could earn revenue.

A European Union judge placed temporary restrictions on information disclosure in December. "We can't take risks," Kroes said. "We have to be aware that the Court of First Instance is watching us and rightly so."

If the Commission went too far, Microsoft could take it back to court, risking further delays........ Reuters

Brian S.

[ Reply to This | # ]

In other words...
Authored by: pointwood on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 03:25 AM EDT
Microsoft got it more or less like they wanted it and nothing really changes.

Why am I not surprised? :(

---
Pointwood
JabberID: Pointwood@jabber.shd.dk

[ Reply to This | # ]

"EU Commission" decision is illegal
Authored by: ak on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 07:08 AM EDT
That decision by the "EU Commission" might simply be illegal. They are
not allowed to favor propietary software companies in that way.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Another sell-out by EU politicians
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 07:32 AM EDT
I think it's very clear that the pattern in the EU is:

1. The pols make noises about freedom, fairness etc etc

2. The pols sell out to whichever mega-corporation comes up with the biggest bribes.

Get used to it, friends.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I think I speak for all of us when I say
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 09:58 AM EDT
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!

[ Reply to This | # ]

EU Commission v. Microsoft - News
Authored by: wood gnome on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 12:53 PM EDT
Neelie Kroes:
"I remain determined to ensure that all elements of the Decision are
properly implemented. This includes the ability for developers of open source
software to take advantage of the remedy."

Very clever - passing the buck to the Court's Decision, somewhere next year,
while blahblahing about open source.
She said this, knowing the content of the deal with M$ - signing it herself
probably - knowing that the M$-OSS interoperability would be put on hold for
years to come....

Kroes' predecessor in the job was the infamous Bolkestein; same country (I'm
ashamed to say-don't blame me), same party (VVD - money is what we want)

ANY EU Commissioner on competition says things - beware! - there's many layers,
they do not care about competition - keyword: Big Money.

how come the past competition commissioners come from right-wing parties.....

a cynical EU voter



---
IANAL, I'm an alien from Europe

[ Reply to This | # ]

NOW IS THE TIME TO MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD!
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 10:45 PM EDT
There is a two week time window for comments before the EU decision
is finalized. I suggest that the FLOSS organizations and orators speak
loudly and logically before a golden opportunity is forever lost.

First, Microsoft has broken open standards in ways designed to block
competitors: e.g., DCE, Kerberos, NFS, NTP, DNS, etc. FLOSS should push
the EU commissioners to speak truthfully on this matter. There is no useful
innovation on Microsoft's part. Microsoft is merely destroying their
competition. Microsoft took others' software to begin with years ago.

Second, Microsoft does not own the broken protocols in any way. So,
FLOSS should push the EU commissioners to speak truthfully about
the travesty that Microsoft licensing really is. Microsoft is licensing IPv4
as well as other IETF RFCs and standards.

Third, no Microsoft software is at risk at all. The competitors'
software would run on other computers. FLOSS should push the EU
commissioners to speak the truth that no Microsoft software is being
licensed. (Major newspapers are stating the Microsoft FUD that Microsoft
software would be running in FLOSS programs!)

Fourth, the EU should decree that all major software vendors must by
force of law run the open standards of the Internet in order to sell to
the public in Europe. I like this but it would be quite a change from the
chaos we suffer today.

Fifth, the EU should further fine Microsoft for damages due to purposefully
corrupting good standards so all forms of malware plague Microsoft
users today. Blame Microsoft for all the damage done by intentionally
screwing up good standards.

Sixth, the EU should be told that the future Longhorn OS is going to break
most all of the existing Internet standards. Indigo will make all existing
firewalls, proxies, and intrusion detection systems fail. The main
security will be personal firewalls that Microsoft has been working on.
Longhorn will devastate Web caching and Web services. The EU can
prevent this.

The next two weeks is an opportunity for knowledgeable organizations
to calmly and precisely point out to the EU commissioners what the heck
is wrong with this bizarre situation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

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 )