|
|
| FSF Europe's Statement on the EU Commission Fine on Microsoft |
 |
|
Thursday, July 13 2006 @ 04:20 AM EDT
|
The Free Software Foundation Europe has issued a statement welcoming the decision of the European Commission to fine Microsoft as a penalty for noncompliance. As you know, the Free Software Foundation Europe was invited by the European Commission to represent the interests of the Free Software movement in the case.
FSFE raises some arguments in its statement that I hadn't heard before, so I thought I should present them here to complete the picture. This is, after all, history we are living, and the explanation for Microsoft's alleged inability to comply earlier is intriguing. Also, it's important to remember who it was that did not quit and leave the field. According to the statement, every proposal Microsoft suggested was "deliberately exclusive of Samba." As for Microsoft's comment that it has 300 engineers working night and day trying to prepare the documentation, FSFE's president Georg Greve comments, "If we are to believe Microsoft's numbers, it appears that 120,000
person days are not enough to document its own software. ...For users, this should be a shock: Microsoft
apparently does not know the software that controls 95% of all desktop
computers on this planet. Imagine General Motors releasing a press
statement to the extent that even though they had 300 of their best
engineers work on this for two years, they cannot provide
specifications for the cars they built."
The statement also gives a specific example of the kind of damage to the market that results from
the inability to interoperate, one that was presented to the court by Samba president and founder Dr. Andrew Tridgell. I know you'll find it interesting. You might recall that back in April, when Dr. Tridgell demonstrated in court the router device that could be developed if interoperability were possible, Sean Daly interviewed Greve for Groklaw and he described the device: I believe Andrew Tridgell was very good at ... explaining to the Court in particular that this is not about "free riding" as Microsoft has alleged among other things, but rather about allowing competition and innovation.
He showed a very small palm-sized box which is a router or actually not a router but a router-sized device that is a -- well, you can think of it as a smart disk and the "smart" in it is Samba. You can plug USB hard disks into this device and put it in your network and embedded on that device runs Samba and serves the disks on the network. And that small box could possibly become an Active Directory server for several hundred people and could do all that work in this palm-sized box for which Microsoft right now requires a full PC. I mean, Samba has hardware requirements that are more than ten times lower than those of the Microsoft implementation. ...I think that made a huge impression on the Court because it showed that this is not about "free riding." This is about coming back to the industry standard of cooperation and interoperation. This is coming back to allowing competitors to actually compete with you. This is coming back to allowing innovation. That is what this case is ultimately about. In today's statement, FSFE puts numbers on that router. It says that it could be made for 100 EUR, if Microsoft didn't hide its interoperability information. Currently, to do the same task requires an entire PC for ten times that amount. Others are pointing out the same thing, as you can see in this Law.com article: Specifically, they say, Microsoft hasn't disclosed enough about the technical languages, known as protocols in engineering parlance, that one machine uses to ask another device to carry out tasks, such as sharing an office printer or dishing out word-processing files stored on a hard drive.
"It's a very fundamental how-do-we-work-together type of definition, and Microsoft, by keeping secret the protocols it uses, makes sure that other companies can't write equivalent software," said Jonathan Eunice, a software analyst at research firm Illuminata....
"It seems very implausible to me that Microsoft can't come up with this stuff given the amount of time and resources they have," said Andy Gavil, a Howard University law professor who follows the company's antitrust cases in the U.S., Europe and elsewhere. "They're basically trying to forestall the competition that the remedy is supposed to facilitate."
Naturally and predictably, "true believers" beg to differ, as you will see at the end of the article.
: )
Here's the FSFE's statement: ****************************
Wed Jul 12 13:07:06 CEST 2006
Commission to Microsoft: Preventing interoperability has a price
FSFE welcomes the decision by the European Commission.
"Microsoft is still as far from allowing competition as it was on the
day of the original Commission ruling in 2004. All proposals made by
Microsoft were deliberately exclusive of Samba, the major remaining
competitor. In that light, the fines do not seem to come early, and
they do not seem high," comments Carlo Piana, Milano based lawyer of
the Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) regarding the decision of
the European Commission to fine Microsoft 1.5 million Euro per day
retroactively from 16. December 2005, totalling 280.5 million Euro.
Should Microsoft not come into compliance until the end of July 2006,
the daily fines could be doubled.
These fines are a reaction to Microsoft's continued lack of compliance
with the European Commission decision to make interoperability
information available to competitors as a necessary precondition to
allow fair competition. FSFE has supported the European Commission
from the start of the suit in 2001.
Having made similar statements during the hearing, Microsoft commented
to the press last week that 300 engineers are currently working
"day and night" to fulfill the request of the public authorities.
"If we are to believe Microsoft's numbers, it appears that 120.000
person days are not enough to document its own software. This is a
task that good software developers do during the development of
software, and a hallmark of bad engineering," comments Georg Greve,
president of the FSFE. "For users, this should be a shock: Microsoft
apparently does not know the software that controls 95% of all desktop
computers on this planet. Imagine General Motors releasing a press
statement to the extent that even though they had 300 of their best
engineers work on this for two years, they cannot provide
specifications for the cars they built."
Many companies run a mixed network of Windows, GNU/Linux, Unix and
other operating systems (OS). The Windows products understand each
other, and all the other operating systems can talk to each other. It
is the connection between the two worlds that was deliberatly
obfuscated a few years ago by Microsoft, and that the Samba project is
working on.
During the main hearing at the European Court of Justice toward the
end of April, the president and founder of Samba Dr. Andrew Tridgell
presented the work of the Samba Team work. Among other things, he
demonstrated a box for roughly 100 EUR. If Microsoft did not hide its
interoperability information, that box would already be capable of
administrating hundreds of users. A small 100 EUR box could do the
same task that is currently done by an entire PC for 1.000,- EUR.
"Dr. Tridgell demonstrated easily what kind of innovation is locked
out of the market by Microsoft's refusal to interoperate with other
vendors. In this case, the price of that refusal are domain
controllers that are ten times more expensive than necessary, and the
price is paid by everyone: private businesses, public authorities and
society as a whole," Georg Greve summarises.
He concludes: "When will society refuse to legitimise such business
practices by buying from companies that exhibit such behaviour?"
About the Free Software Foundation Europe:
The Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) is a charitable
non-governmental organisation dedicated to all aspects of Free
Software in Europe. Access to software determines who may
participate in a digital society. Therefore the Freedoms to use,
copy, modify and redistribute software - as described in the Free
Software definition- allow equal participation in the information
age. Creating awareness for these issues, securing Free Software
politically and legally, and giving people Freedom by supporting
development of Free Software are central issues of the FSFE. The
FSFE was founded in 2001 as the European sister organisation of the
Free Software Foundation in the United States.
Further information: http://fsfeurope.org
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Powerin on Thursday, July 13 2006 @ 04:37 AM EDT |
| Please advise of any mistakes or corrections here... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Powerin on Thursday, July 13 2006 @ 04:41 AM EDT |
Everyone likes HTML links here, But its easy to go to a text URL in
Firefox....highlight the URL -> then CTRL-C, T, V and hit Enter....link
opened in a new tab. Easy :-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Off topic thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 13 2006 @ 05:04 AM EDT
- Debian servers compromised - Authored by: Winter on Thursday, July 13 2006 @ 05:41 AM EDT
- YASSP - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, July 13 2006 @ 05:46 AM EDT
- Some pictures from HP's past - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 13 2006 @ 06:01 AM EDT
- EU court annuls approval of 2004 Sony BMG deal - Authored by: Chris Lingard on Thursday, July 13 2006 @ 06:50 AM EDT
- Patenting tax advice, only in the US - Authored by: globularity on Thursday, July 13 2006 @ 07:18 AM EDT
- Tridge is a doctor? - Authored by: justjeff on Thursday, July 13 2006 @ 09:05 AM EDT
- Easier in Opera ;-) - Authored by: pogson on Thursday, July 13 2006 @ 09:42 AM EDT
- Easier yet in UNIX/Linux - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 13 2006 @ 09:58 AM EDT
- Firefox and opening text links - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 13 2006 @ 10:21 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 13 2006 @ 05:21 AM EDT |
I've sort-of given up with Microsoft. I can get old PCs from the scrap-heap
working perfectly well, sometimes with a spare part or two, and the plentiful
'free' software we have nowadays.
If I want a DVD player, they're so cheap
nowadays that they are practically given away with each DVD you buy. So the lack
of a 'free' DVD player isn't really a problem.
If someone makes you use a
Windows box, you can always get yourself a Linux-for-Windows
screensaver (BitTorrent link here) and make it look like something
that behaves according to open standards, like a proper professional
computer.
The Internet views 'Monopoly' as a form of damage, and routes
around it.
I wish the EU would stick to reforming the Common Agricultural
Policy, and figuring out whether it should have a Constitution or not. Annoying
Microsoft with fines is about as useful as poking a beehive with a pointy
stick.
I've got work to do. Time to move on. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Fruny on Thursday, July 13 2006 @ 05:37 AM EDT |
In today's statement, FSFE puts numbers on that router. It says
that it could be made for 100 EUR, if Microsoft didn't hide its interoperability
information. Currently, to do the same task requires an entire PC for ten times
that amount.
What version of Windows do you need for an Active
Directory server. How many licenses do you have to pay for?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: The Cornishman on Thursday, July 13 2006 @ 06:12 AM EDT |
The Computer Weekly article quotes Horacio Gutierrez as saying they were working
with "over 300 dedicated engineers", which doesn't necessarily imply
*best* engineers, except that he goes on to say “We have moved every available
employee with knowledge of this technology to work on this project, and a great
many of them have sacrificed greatly in terms of their personal lives over the
last several months.” It would be more accurate to speak of "300 of their
best and worst engineers". This presumably means that no-one is left
working on this technology for Vista, then.
---
(c) assigned to PJ[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 13 2006 @ 07:11 AM EDT |
It looks like people around the world are beginning to see that you have to
share some of your 'Intellectual Property' in order to enable innovation.
What does this really say about the value of the IP concept?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 13 2006 @ 07:44 AM EDT |
I think another angle that isn't talked about enough is Microsoft doesn't have
the right to put other peoples data in jeopardy just to keep their lock-in.
If a company buys a competing device or software, and they need to move data to
that competing device or software, there may be data loss. Whose responsible
for that? Is it the company's fault? Or the competitor's fault? No, it's
Microsoft that did it. And intentionally I might add.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 13 2006 @ 07:51 AM EDT |
| they dare to accuse others of free riding! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: seanlynch on Thursday, July 13 2006 @ 08:42 AM EDT |
Is Microsoft telling the truth, or is it trying to manipulate public opinion
with lies?
Either way, it is time for investors to dump Microsoft stock
before its too late.
And , No, I'm not joking.
Take a look at the
quote:
"If we are to believe Microsoft's numbers, it appears
that 120.000 person days are not enough to document its own software. This is a
task that good software developers do during the development of software, and a
hallmark of bad engineering," comments Georg Greve, president of the FSFE. "For
users, this should be a shock: Microsoft apparently does not know the software
that controls 95% of all desktop computers on this planet. Imagine General
Motors releasing a press statement to the extent that even though they had 300
of their best engineers work on this for two years, they cannot provide
specifications for the cars they built."
If Microsoft is
telling the truth, and they really have so little understanding of their own
products that they cannot produce the Court ordered documentation of interfaces,
How do they expect to provide continued support for those products to their
customers in a timely and efficient manner? If Microsoft is telling the truth,
their future expenses will spiral out of control, and revenues will drop
drastically as they fail to deliver basic support for their product line. So If
MS is telling the truth, sell before the correction happens. That is, if you
believe what Microsoft is saying.
If Microsoft is telling us lies, well
then we don't really know what the truth is and its hard to make a decision when
you don't have facts. But we do know for sure they are either telling lies, or
telling the truth. If you review the history of companies that tell lies so
blatantly, you will see that they were all well overpriced in terms of market
value. Just review Worldcom, Enron and others where the 'C' level officers were
regularly caught fibbing to the public. So if Microsoft is not being honest, the
best advice is to sell their stock before the correction
happens!
- Truth: Strong Sell.
- Lies: Strong
Sell.
Either way, sell now.
Do it before you lose your investment. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 13 2006 @ 11:20 AM EDT |
In the previous article on this subject, people were discussing how the fines
basically amount to "nothing" for Microsoft, and so are not an
incentive to stop the bad behavior.
While I'm sure that's true, what about if the money were put to good use. Since
the fine is ostensibly for not documenting the interfaces, I think the EU should
just hand over the money to Tridgell and his team. I would think that a few
hundred million Euros would go a long way towards paying for high quality
reverse engineering to allow interoperability.
Pros:
- Money goes to a good cause
- Microsoft turns over _great_ documentation before you can blink
Cons:
I can't think of any...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: k12linux on Thursday, July 13 2006 @ 11:28 AM EDT |
I think it's important to point out that Samba wasn't created with the desire
to be a "Windows" client and/or server. (As I understand it...) It was created
as an implimentation of existing documented SMB and later CIFS protocols. These
were in use on other platforms before they were even availble in Windows.
In
fact Samba wasn't even written originally to talk to Windows systems. It was
written to access files on a Dec's `Pathworks' network (according to this history
originally written by Andrew Tridgell and the Samba Team in 1994.) Windows
support was only added 2 years or more after the initial release.
This Groklaw
article by Tridgell is an excellent explanation of how Samba came to be.
Note that not only were the protocols MS uses created by others, but Microsoft's
changes to the protocols wastes a lot of the Samba team's time trying to be
compatibile with 90% of the PCs in use today. ---
- SCO is trying to save a
sinking ship by drilling holes in it. -- k12linux [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 13 2006 @ 12:13 PM EDT |
{ Oops... Sorry about the previous incomplete posting }
I'm going to
stay anonymous, sorry about that.
I used to write computer Anti-Virus
software.
Back around 1996, when Microsoft Word macro viruses were just
beginning to be written, Microsoft finally admitted that they were more than
just a "prank" and that anti-virus software needed to find and remove
them.
Of course, what everyone in the industry asked for was the file
formats for Word. Microsoft could not give them to us.
Not
"would not". COULD
NOT.
Microsoft Word files were implemented via a set of
C++ objects. Saving a WORD file? Save the set of associated objects. Opening
a WORD file? Read the set of associated object (in reverse order, of
course).
So, how were we supposed to read / clean Word files? We were
given a "reference implementation", the basic C++ objects need to create / open
a Word document. There were just 2 problems with this:
1) The
reference implementation was incomplete / incorrect.
2)
Most Anti-Virus scanners were not written in Microsoft's Windows C++
compiler.
What was done varied by company, but the common
direction (and the one we took) was to reverse-engineer the actual file format
from the C++ objects. This took a lot of time and effort, but it could be
done.
Of course, every time a new version of Word came out, the was a
new set of C++ objects, and we had to do more reverse-engineering and tweak our
scanners.
So, if Microsoft can't even willingly give a file format to
companies that are trying to help them clean up their messes, do you really
think they are going to give away "the keys to the vault" under court order?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 13 2006 @ 12:39 PM EDT |
Again, Rob Enderle shows that he is MS' shill:
But analyst
Rob Enderle of the Enderle Group said it was less clear who might benefit from
the kind of documentation the EU is seeking. Sun Microsystems Inc., which first
complained about the lack of information, is facing a much bigger threat from
the free Linux operating system than Microsoft's server offerings, he
said.
What an apples to orange comparison. Sun does face
competition from Linux as does MS. They are all in competition with each other.
Forcing MS to disclose protocols benefits Sun and Linux. If he was
paying any attention to the proceedings, Andrew Tridgell provided one concrete
example. If he had access to Windows networking protocols, he could make an AD
server that sells for 100EUR. Right now to get the same functionality one would
have to spend 1000EUR. That benefits any business or consumer that uses
Windows.
And software such as that offered by the Apache
Foundation, which makes a popular package for running Internet servers, is doing
well despite the EU's claims, Enderle said.
No, it is the
perfect example of the EU's claims. Internet HTTP servers like Apache and IIS
work on open standards like HTTP,FTP, etc. Apache has much more market share
because it can implement them better than MS and they are
free.
"This one has always seemed very strange for me," he
said of the fines the EU has promised if Microsoft doesn't deliver more
documentation. "Other than doing a substantial amount of damage to Microsoft,
it's not clear what the benefit is."
If he is talking the
fine itself, it's not about benefitting others. It's about punishment. MS has
not complied so it has to be punished. That's like saying "Johnny was sent into
the corner because he threw his peas. Other than damaging Johnny, I'm not sure
what the benefit is." [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Alan(UK) on Thursday, July 13 2006 @ 12:52 PM EDT |
Could any company that can show that their business is being damaged by
Microsoft's continuing failure to comply, now sue Microsoft in the civil courts
with a reasonable certainty of winning?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 13 2006 @ 01:46 PM EDT |
Actually, the very fact that they want to give code-names to a
documentation project at all reveals a lot about the Microsoft mindset. What is
wrong with "Phase 1, Phase 2", or better still
- Chapter 1: Fundamental
Concepts
- Chapter 2: Control Flow
- ...
?
It's like
the idiotic codenames for Windows versions. For 5 years everyone calls something
Longhorn (as "codenames" go, not the best kept secret in the world); then
suddenly they start calling it Vista, and neither are as meaningful or useful as
just calling it NT 6.0. If they stopped playing schoolyard spy games and
started doing some professional software engineering, maybe they wouldn't be in
this hole. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rmmst49 on Thursday, July 13 2006 @ 05:14 PM EDT |
the technical information and protocol specifications that SAMBA/anyone else
interested in creating an alternative to MS's Exchange software needs would take
as long as a fedex overnight flight to get to the EU comission if MS decided to
make it available as it has been asked.
MS has some of the most talented and accomplished engineers in the world
creating their products. The process of engineering involves documenting your
work in such a way that it can be easily understood/extended by your colleagues.
This information is therefore undoubtably available to anyone working at MS or
any of there partners, once they sign the requisite NDA's.
I think it would be a pretty safe guess that all the info nyone ever needed to
know about exchange protocols could fit comfortably into a 2inch 3 ring binder.
So whats the problem?
The problem, of course, is that MS doesn't want anyone to be able to coexist in
a networked environment without paying their licensing fees. Every day that
they stall puts millions in their pockets.
Only nontechnical people who still pecieve the inner working s of computers and
programs as *MAGIC* will be unable to see this 'explanation' from MS as total
crap.
The problem is that most people in the world fall into this category.
Because of this, i think that we, as people who understand this stuff, should do
a better job of spelling it out for those that don't. As more people become
aware of the extent to which they are being taken for ignorant fools by
companies like MS, more will object to the circumstances we currently find
ourselves in. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tz on Thursday, July 13 2006 @ 10:35 PM EDT |
I know because they haven't released a quite buildable tree, and because I've
hacked (added GPSd and other functionality to) the Kyocera KR1 EVDO router which
is a derivative (if you look at the firmware, it contains a lot of leftover
samba pieces). It is a mips based Linux router, not unlike the WRT54G, and a
large part of the software is in the DLink ftp GPL download section
But you can hook any two USB disks to the 624S and they will be shared over the
network, even iPods (if they have the FAT or other supported filesystems, most
USB keys work).
However I don't think Active directory is supported, or the other advanced
features. If Microsoft were to comply, they could be added.
If anyone doubted the statement, it already has been done to the limits allowed
by Microsoft.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: darkonc on Friday, July 14 2006 @ 05:50 PM EDT |
| I see two people looking under the hood of a car The first in business atire,
the second in overalls.:
voiceover: After two years, Microsoft has
been unable to document their server protocols
First: So, how do these
two parts work together.
Second: I'm not sure.
First: What about those
two
Second: Well, I think I understand, but I can't really tell
you.
First: Well, What does this duct do?
Second: Uhm, Mike coulda told
you that...
First: Where's Mike?
Second: He died last year. ...
But I can tell you how this part works!
First: everybody knows
how a dipstick works. ...
Do I really have to rely on you to maintain this
thing?
Second: I don't just maintain these. I design them.
First:
[straightens up in surprise and bumps his head]
ow!.
voiceover: If Microsoft can't document how windows works,
how can they make it work well?
textover: Linux: Software
that it's designers understand. ---
Powerful, committed communication.
Touching the jewel within each person and bringing it to life.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
