|
|
| Dear MA, Please Note: EU Commission Threatens MS With $2.4 Million Daily Fines |
 |
|
Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 11:05 AM EST
|
Dear Massachusetts (Governor Romney, Secretary Galvin, Senator Hart, et al):
Are you watching this? Microsoft, as you may have heard, has been under pressure in Europe to make their APIs available to its competition for interoperability purposes. Now, so far, that has meant only that they have to do so for non-Linux competitors, as they were able to achieve a carve-out that leaves Linux and all FOSS out in the cold during the appeal. For all their other competitors in the server space, they were ordered "to disclose complete and accurate interface documentation which would allow non-Microsoft work group servers to achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers". Of course, they claim they have, and they did turn over documentation.
But Professor Neil Barrett, the Monitoring Trustee, monitoring their compliance with the EU order says, according to the EU Commission press release,
the technical documentation Microsoft submitted is "totally unfit at this stage for its intended purpose": Since the 24(1) Decision, Microsoft has revised the interoperability information that it is obliged to disclose. However, the Commission takes the preliminary view that this information is incomplete and inaccurate. This view is supported by the report of the Monitoring Trustee, which concludes that, “any programmer or programming team seeking to use the Technical Documentation for a real development exercise would be wholly and completely unable to proceed on the basis of the documentation. The Technical Documentation is therefore totally unfit at this stage for its intended purpose.” The report also states that, “the documentation appears to be fundamentally flawed in its conception, and in its level of explanation and detail... Overall, the process of using the documentation is an absolutely frustrating, time-consuming and ultimately fruitless task. The documentation needs quite drastic overhaul before it could be considered workable.” Ask yourself this: is it because Microsoft doesn't know how to write clear documentation? Therefore, the Commission has issued a statement of Objections against Microsoft: The European Commission has issued a Statement of Objections against Microsoft for its failure to comply with certain of its obligations under the March 2004 Commission decision (the “March 2004 Decision”, see IP/04/382). That decision found Microsoft to have infringed the EC Treaty rules on abuse of a dominant position (Article 82) by leveraging its near monopoly in the market for PC operating systems onto the markets for work group server operating systems and for media players. One of the remedies imposed by the decision was for 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 Statement of Objections indicates that the Commission’s preliminary view, supported by two reports from the Monitoring Trustee (see IP/05/1215), is that Microsoft has not yet provided complete and accurate specifications for this interoperability information. After giving Microsoft an opportunity to reply to the Statement of Objections, the Commission may impose a daily penalty. They have until January 25 to comply or the fines start, retroactive to December 15. Playing nicely with others is not a Microsoft skill. And, in fact, they are huffing and puffing that they will fight the Commission's "unjustified" demands to the full extent of their legal powers. Microsoft's attorney is quoted in the BBC News article: "We will contest today's statement to the full extent permitted under EU law, including a full oral hearing on these issues," Microsoft legal chief Brad Smith said in a statement. They do have that right, according to the EU press release: Microsoft has five weeks to respond to the Statement of Objections and has a right to an Oral Hearing. The Commission may then, after consulting the Advisory Committee of Member State Competition Authorities, issue a decision pursuant to Article 24(2) of Regulation 1/2003 imposing a fine on Microsoft for every day between 15 December 2005 and the date of that Article 24(2) decision. The Commission may then take other steps to continue the daily fine until Microsoft complies with the decision.
As regards the second issue highlighted in the Article 24(1) decision, namely the obligation for Microsoft to make the interoperability information available on reasonable terms, the Commission, with the input of the Monitoring Trustee, is currently evaluating additional information provided by Microsoft. The EU Commission's FAQ tells us this final tidbit: Is the Commission examining other allegations relating to Microsoft?
No allegations against Microsoft have been formally raised yet with the Commission. If they are, the Commission will naturally examine them on their merits. Here's a nice map of Europe and the countries' flags, in case Microsoft's Steve Ballmer wants to throw a chair in anyone's direction. So, what might Massachusetts learn from this story? You are grown men, so you can do the math without me. But here's my hint anyway: if Microsoft tells you it will be open and will enable interoperability, it doesn't mean they define the words the same way you do. Open is as open does, my friends. Keep your eyes open. That's my advice. Here's what EU Commissioner Neelie Kroes said back in June of 2005, after Microsoft promised to do right: “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. Eerie, huh? It sounds to me a lot like Governor Romney, when he announced recently his pleasure that Microsoft was making progress toward openness to qualify in the Commonwealth by submitting its XML format to Ecma. Here's a fail-safe suggestion, to spare yourselves a lot of hassle. You've seen that the Ecma process is pretty much a rubber stamp on whatever Microsoft submits. Proprietary extensions, whatever. So why not demand that Microsoft merge its XML standard, once it is one, into the ODF standard that already exists before you will approve it? That way, Microsoft gets its backward compatibility, you get true openness, and Microsoft will be blocked from playing the kinds of games they've made internationally famous. Microsoft's Alan Yates, in his remarks at the last Senate hearing already reportedly said to you that this merge could and likely would happen someday. Why not set a date for them to really do it and refuse to accept their offered (Cf. Dan Bricklin's audio) standard until they do? I know. It's brilliant. 5 cents please.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: jesse on Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 12:04 PM EST |
| and thank you. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jesse on Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 12:06 PM EST |
| Thank you. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jesse on Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 12:08 PM EST |
that one of the probems the MS offering had was a $50,000 fee for each
programmer per year to actually USE the documentation. Though this amount may
have been reduced, I don't remember any mention of that.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 12:39 PM EST |
Actually...no. If their current volume of work out there is any guide, MS does
not know how to write clear documentation.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Prototrm on Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 12:44 PM EST |
(Apologies to Mel Brooks for the title)
Never having worked for Microsoft, I can't speak for certain about them, but
when I started working for one software company some years ago, and asked to see
the technical specs and documentation for the program I was going to maintain, I
was directed to the source code and told "everything you need to know is in
there". They had no specs, technical or otherwise, and the only
documentation they had was for the user, not the programmer.
The bigger a software company is, it seems, the less they practice industry
standards.
Are all of Microsoft's documentation eggs in one source code basket, like the
company I used to work for? Given that the resulting software from both
companies is equally buggy, it wouldn't surprise me in the least.
What's that old saying? "Never attribute to malice what can be adequately
explained by stupidity". Microsoft may *not* know how to properly document
their protocols, outside of handing someone the source code (which they can't
do).
Oh, as an aside, note that FLOSS may be more susceptable to this sin than
proprietary software, as the FLOSS source code is more easily available to
developers.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kawabago on Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 12:48 PM EST |
That is the purpose of their open format, to NOT interoperate with ODF. So
there is no hope that Office XML will ever be mergable with ODF. Microsoft will
forge ahead with it's own format and will try to prove it's market position is
enough to make it a success. I doubt this. There is so much anti-M feeling out
there that I doubt Windows Vista or Office 12 will succeed.
---
TTFN[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Yossarian on Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 12:51 PM EST |
> Ask yourself this: is it because Microsoft doesn't
> know how to write clear documentation?
Yes.
When you are a monopoly, and your customers have no choice,
you don't have to write clear documentation. What can the
customer do, buy from the compettition?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: vonbrand on Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 01:57 PM EST |
Sorry, that won't fly. I haven't looked very closely, but the comparison in
Format
Comparison Between ODF and MS XML shows that the differences are
huge, so that IMHO merging them just is not possible (or at the very
least, very undesirable). [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 02:30 PM EST |
I like the quote below. It accurately describes ALL of the API documentation
I've had to work with for the last five years or more. Not only that: using
tools like Doxygen (open source!) you can automatically generate professional,
detailed API documentation that is useless for any purpose. I congratulate MS on
emulating the state of the art.
- Precision Blogger
“... any programmer or programming team seeking to use the Technical
Documentation for a real development exercise would be wholly and completely
unable to proceed on the basis of the documentation. The Technical Documentation
is therefore totally unfit at this stage for its intended purpose.” The report
also states that, “the documentation appears to be fundamentally flawed in its
conception, and in its level of explanation and detail... Overall, the process
of using the documentation is an absolutely frustrating, time-consuming and
ultimately fruitless task. The documentation needs quite drastic overhaul before
it could be considered workable.”[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: agriffin on Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 02:40 PM EST |
I was going through some old files from when I worked as a federal goverment
infromation technology policy wonk (internal use of IT). The group I worked in
was having to deal with several Microsoft created interoperability and
accessability problems. E.g., agencies had recurring problems sharing Microsoft
Word documents (.doc) because of inconsistant presentation across platforms as
well as backward compatability across versions. The accessability issues delt
with broken 3rd party applications when Microsoft changed its APIs.
Dan
Gillmor's article, "The role model for 'do as I say, not as I do'", appeared
on/in San Jose Mercury News (SiliconValley.com) 9:22p.m. PDT Thursday, September
30, 1999.
Here is the opening paragraph: Back in July [1999],
Microsoft Corp. was screaming foul over America Online Inc.'s proprietary method
ov connecting "instant messaging" customers. "Now is the time to unlock the
broadest possibilities of this technology and the Internet by tearing down the
walls between vendors so that all customers can talk to one another," Microsoft
and several other AOL instant-messaging competitors urged in a letter to the
online giant.
Dan goes on the discuss Office file formats and
that "Mircosoft's Office-suite dominance is caused in part by its proprietary
standards, no just the relative quality of the software ...". Dan attempted to
engage Microsoft in a discussion, but was told by a Microsoft public-relations
person, "This isn't an issue Microsoft is going to engage on."
There is much
more in the article about Microsoft's "understandable wish not to acknowledge
hypocrisy ..." and open source.
I was unable to locate the online version in
the paper's archives (I do not accept cookies from strangers), but did notice
that it would have been copyrighted even though the printout that I have has no
such notice.
Perhaps PJ can get Mr. Gillmor to let Groklaw reprint the full
text. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 03:07 PM EST |
I see erie parallels between this and a scene in "Mars Attacks" where
the French President is telling the US President that they've just struck a deal
with the Martians...
Vik :v)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: overshoot on Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 03:11 PM EST |
| Ask yourself this: is it because Microsoft doesn't know how to write clear
documentation?
Yes. Microsoft has always proceeded on the principle
that the code is the documentation. The whole concept of design to
specification is foreign to them.
That's why they keep going ballistic about
"giving away their intellectual property" when a judge orders them to disclose
their protocols: to them, the protocol documentation is the source code for
Microsoft Windows.
Sometimes the code changes, in which case the
"specifications" change, too. Not a big problem for Microsoft, fortunately,
since they're in position to command the market. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: overshoot on Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 04:01 PM EST |
| That's serious. It's so much money that it won't even come out of petty cash --
it'll have to be budgeted. Maybe some low-level manager can fit it into the
recreation fund or something.
Put another way: at 2 million euros a day, it
will take more than sixty years to eat through Microsoft's current cash
reserve -- assuming that they don't make any more money in the
meantime.
Microsoft's monopoly is worth tens of billions a year to them. If
the price of maintaining that monopoly is a piddling two million a day, it's an
unbelievable bargain. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bap on Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 04:12 PM EST |
When you see something like this do you make the effort to write letters to your
state reps, the gov, etc.? If you don't then shame on you! If you do then how
about providing some details (addresses, etc) for those who would like to join
in?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 04:35 PM EST |
Of course; assuming that they haven't started already, this would cost a few
weeks, or perhaps even months. Since it seems that completing it would stop
further fines, the earlier they start, the better.
Zimbel[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 06:21 PM EST |
Merging odf and ms xml?
I'm not a real professional as far as standards go, but how would this result in
anything useful.
Mixing dirt with water results in dirty water.
If you add ms xml to odf, you'll get those binary thingies you didn't like in ms
xml. I also guess it would ruin the simplicity of odf.
And this, why?
Just so M$ doesn't leave the scene utterly beaten?
I think the sooner they admit defeat and start implementing odf the better for
all.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: artp on Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 10:57 PM EST |
> Ask yourself this: is it because Microsoft doesn't know how to write clear
documentation?
There may be another explanation, close to the one proposed by Prototrm above.
I used to work at a place with a psychopathic CEO. I won't bother explaining
that here. Documentation wasn't needed because the CEO was the authoritative
source.
He told me that I would be leading a project that had failed before. I asked
him where I might find the original project specifications.
Well, I had never seen anyone's brow develop pulsing blood vessels before that.
He told me in crisp, short, emphatic syllables "Don't ask questions that
don't have an answer. Ask the questions that people can answer."
You just had to anticipate what he was going to ask for, then have it ready when
he asked for it. He gave me two weeks, and no extra money, for an ecommerce
project back in 1996, when the existing system couldn't run for six hours
without crashing to a root prompt.
Needless to say, successful strategy relied on convincing him that what you had
was what he wanted. It was all show, and no go.
I later left that company because the specifications that we developed for the
project showed that there wasn't a snowball's chance in Hades for success. The
main problem, as some of you may know, was the CEO. While trying to write the
business rules, I came upon an indescribable rule, at least in computing terms.
The CEO's major failing was that there was never any business that he would turn
down, even if we weren't equipped to do it. There was no focus to the business,
no long range planning. If you wanted to change our business model, just call
the CEO and ask for something that we didn't do.
I suspect that Bill Gates may be somewhere in this ballpark. Deliver, deliver,
deliver. Several people have mentioned that the source code is the documentation
at Microsoft. I find that very believeable.
If the target never sits still, then you can never document it, whether it is
writing business rules, users' instructions, or technical reference.
If everything is based on reaction to external stimuli, then you cannot predict
the conditions the software has to meet. It is a mutant with a rapid and
unpredictable mutation rate.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 23 2005 @ 04:57 AM EST |
Almost every single article of yours brings a grin to my face.
You're irreplacable, PJ.
Thank you for everything.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 23 2005 @ 05:37 AM EST |
PJ, this is an important point to bring before MA. Might I
suggest re-writing it in a (slightly) less bemused tone,
and submitting it as an open letter that they will actually
read? It really would be good if MA was aware of the games
happening over here (and don't forget South Korea), and
that likely to happen to them too. Hell, they're already
being toyed with, and politically undermined. They should
be embarrassed by now. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 23 2005 @ 12:53 PM EST |
Let's say that somebody accuses you of being a crazy malicious old cat lady.
Can I then go on to call you a crazy malicious old cat lady without you having
any recourse under libel or slander law, just because someone else said it
first?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 23 2005 @ 02:31 PM EST |
| ... remember embrace,
extend and extinguish?
We really don't want MS anywhere close to ODF, if we
know what's good for us...
~ray
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 24 2005 @ 10:45 PM EST |
$2.4 million/day is chump change to Microsoft. They will probably just pay it
and keep the specs closed.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
