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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

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


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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
Microsoft-DOJ Joint Status Report June 17, 2008
Friday, June 20 2008 @ 09:53 PM EDT

I thought you might like to see the Microsoft-Department of Justice Joint Status Report on Microsoft's Compliance with the Final Judgments, as entered in New York, et. al. v. Microsoft, CA No. 98-1233 (CKK), and in United States v. Microsoft, CA No. 98-1232, dated June 17, 2008. And I'd like to point out a couple of things.

This is an interim report, meaning it is only about recent activities. To read the whole story, go here and read at least the last six-month report from back in February. The November 2006 joint report is also part of the picture, in that Microsoft said it had thrown some 260 employees into the task of coming up with suitable documentation. But if you read them all, each joint report, one by one, you'll get the full effect and I predict you'll surely laugh.

It appears from that record that no matter what Microsoft tries or how diligently they work at it or how many employees they assign to this noble task of providing interoperability documentation, it just can't be done. Microsoft is like Sisyphus of old, working every day with all its might to get that boulder to the top of the hill, only to see it fall back down again, throughout eternity. Of course, you might point out that his troubles are a myth. Microsoft's are real. You think? You might also recall the API issue that surfaced in the Comes v. Microsoft litigation.

The big picture, to me, is this: Microsoft is *still* not in full compliance with its obligations to provide documentation. That was the issue the DOJ raised two full years ago, and I was teasing Microsoft about it then. Two years later, it's nowhere near as funny. The difficulties resulted in a new plan and with the court deciding to extend oversight for two more years.

But here we are, with the same problem, and, worse, Microsoft has been changing protocols without notice to the technical committee working on compliance in this matter, the Justice Department tells us in this report, despite last year promising not to do that *any more*.

If the same misconduct continues forever and a day, with nothing but promises that for one reason or another are never kept, then what?

No. Really. Then what?

And deeper, if Microsoft can't document its software in five years, is it trying? or incompetent? innovating in the regulatory space? or what?

I do recall that the EU Commission had a similar difficulty getting documentation from Microsoft, but when the EU Commission said to provide documentation and meant it (despite some Microsoft avoidance efforts, as I would characterize them), it happened, and Samba got the necessary documentation. Ta da! A plan. Maybe the DOJ should add Professor Neil Barrett to the team.

The court asked both sides to file this interim report, and it reflects both sides' points of view. The Department of Justice wrote the overall report, but Microsoft authored Section III. You won't find it hard to recognize that.

I'll show it to you in full, so as not to distort anything, but here's the piece that I think matters most, from Section II, written by the DOJ. As you'll see, believe it or not, Microsoft is still laboring mightily to try to come up with workable documentation:

Three recent matters relating to Microsoft's progress in improving the documentation are worth noting. First, the TC determined that in the process of revising the technical documentation, Microsoft removed a number of protocol elements that were included in previous versions of the documentation. When this same issue arose last year, Microsoft and the TC discussed that Microsoft would not remove protocol elements from the documentation without first discussing it with the TC in order to ensure that there was no substantive disagreement. Plaintiffs are concerned that the same problem has occurred again. In some cases there may be perfectly valid and sufficient reasons for removing certain protocol elements,(2) but it is important for the stability of the documentation that the TC review the proposed deletions before they occur, as Microsoft and the TC previously agreed.

What about the future? What's the plan, the current schedule for Microsoft to finally comply:

As Microsoft describes in its section of this report, Microsoft plans to publish drafts of all nineteen documents by the end of March 2009 and to publish the final version of all system documents by the end of June 2009. Once Microsoft and the TC finalize the template (or templates) for the system documents, Microsoft will develop a more detailed schedule with a number of identifiable deliverables over time. As with the earlier phases of the reset project, establishing individual milestones for particular groups of system documents will allow Plaintiffs and the TC to assess the quality of the newly-created documents in a more orderly way, to provide Microsoft with timely feedback, and to monitor Microsoft's progress in meeting its schedule commitments. Plaintiffs and Microsoft will provide the Court with this detailed plan when it is available. As with the reset project itself, experience in preparing the system documents over time may result in changes to the current list of nineteen documents such as adding additional documents, combining documents, or shifting subject matter between documents.

How does that sound to you? Like a plan? Where is the goal post? I mean the final one? Of course, if Microsoft (oops!) keeps changing protocols, it will take longer even than this generous time frame.

Same old, same old. Move the goal post. Vaporous promises. And that is what I fear they will continue to do with OOXML, if it's ever approved, because they can. Who will stop them? ISO? They seemed to fall into Stockholm Syndrome long ago, the few that were not replaced with Microsoft folks. What is the effect of Microsoft changing the protocols in the compliance work? Exactly what you'd expect:

Second, and on a related note, the TC has suggested to Microsoft that it would be extremely beneficial to the TC and licensees to create a mechanism for detailing changes between versions of the documentation. Currently, it is difficult to tell exactly what has changed when Microsoft releases a new version of the documentation. This slows down the TC in its work by making it difficult to evaluate revisions to the documentation and causes issues such as the one discussed in the previous paragraph, where it is difficult for the TC (and Microsoft itself) to determine whether protocol elements have been removed from the documentation. Licensees have also informed the TC that the absence of version-to-version change information complicates product development. Microsoft was receptive to the TC's suggestion and will work with the TC to develop an effective mechanism to track changes to the documentation.

Finally, at the beginning of the year Microsoft changed the schedule for publishing updated technical documentation from monthly to quarterly. The TC's experience with this change has not been positive, as it creates a longer lag time between the identification of issues in the documentation and the publication of fixes to those issues. Licensees have expressed similar concerns to the TC. The TC therefore raised this issue with Microsoft in a recent meeting, and Microsoft agreed to increase the frequency of publishing updates to the documentation.

There is more, of course. I love the parts where the Technical Committee (TC) asks for particular documentation, and Microsoft says, "Sure!" Then it provides it and the TC expresses concerns about its quality, and in the meantime, Microsoft avoids actually complying. That's how I interpret it, anyway. And there is a section on patents:

Plaintiffs reviewed the patent license once it was announced and discussed with Microsoft the changes to the MCPP licensing structure. As a general matter, Plaintiffs believe that the publication of the technical documentation and the substantial reduction in royalties, as compared to the previous license, are positive steps, which will encourage wider use of the protocols in the MCPP (possibly beyond the use envisaged by the Final Judgments) and thereby promote interoperability with Windows clients. Plaintiffs did raise several issues with Microsoft regarding the new patent license, and Microsoft agreed to revise the license to address these matters. Plaintiffs wanted to ensure that future licensees had the same legal rights under the license that existing licensees possess. Most significantly, Plaintiffs requested Microsoft carry over into the new patent license: (1) the legally binding guarantee of the timeliness of future documentation updates and the quality of the documentation; and (2) the indemnification provisions in the previous license. Microsoft was receptive to these concerns and has posted a revised patent license which adds the relevant provisions from the previous MCPP license.

I would hope that the Department of Justice would consider any exclusion of commercial GPL programmers/entities as an issue worthy of attention going forward, now that Red Hat has shown us that it is indeed possible to establish patent license terms that do not conflict with even GPLv3.

You'll notice in the report that the TC is also monitoring and testing some browser issues:

Additionally, the TC's on-going review of Windows' treatment of middleware defaults is being expanded to include an operating system source code scan in an effort to determine whether some commonality in the code accounts for default overrides. The TC also is investigating certain default browser overrides, which Microsoft asserts arise from reasonable technical requirements that competing browsers apparently do not implement. The TC will discuss its findings with Microsoft once this inquiry is concluded.

If you have info for them, I'm sure they'd be interested in having it. Note at the end of the report that if you send a complaint about anything outside the limits of what the DOJ and the TC are focusing on, it gets filed in File 13 or in some endless loop.

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

Defendant.


|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Civil Action No. 98-1232 (CKK)

Next Court Deadline:
June 24, 2008 Status Conference



JOINT STATUS REPORT ON MICROSOFT'S
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FINAL JUDGMENTS

The United States of America, Plaintiff in United States v. Microsoft, CA No. 98-1232 (CKK), and the Plaintiffs in New York, et al. v. Microsoft, CA No. 98-1233 (CKK), the States of New York, Ohio, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina, and Wisconsin (the "New York Group"), and the States of California, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Utah, and the District of Columbia (the "California Group") (collectively "Plaintiffs"), together with Defendant Microsoft, hereby file a Joint Status Report on Microsoft's Compliance with the Final Judgments, pursuant to this Court's Order of May 14, 2003.

I. INTRODUCTION

In a minute order dated April 17, 2008, the Court directed the Plaintiffs to file a Status Report updating the Court on activities relating to Microsoft's compliance with the Final Judgments entered in New York, et. al. v. Microsoft, CA No. 98-1233 (CKK), and in United States v. Microsoft, CA No. 98-1232 (CKK).

The last Status Report, filed February 29, 2008, served as a six-month report, containing certain relevant information requested by the Court. Order at 1-3 (May 14, 2003). This Report is an interim report relating only to recent enforcement activities. Section II of this Report discusses Plaintiffs' efforts to enforce the Final Judgments; this section was authored by Plaintiffs. Section III discusses Microsoft's efforts to comply with the Final Judgments; this section was authored by Microsoft. Neither Plaintiffs nor Microsoft necessarily adopts the views expressed by the other.

II. UPDATE ON PLAINTIFFS' EFFORTS TO ENFORCE THE FINAL JUDGMENTS

A. Section III.E (Communications Protocol Licensing)

Plaintiffs' work concerning Section III.E and the Microsoft Communications Protocol Program ("MCPP") continues to center on efforts to improve the technical documentation provided to licensees. In particular, Plaintiffs, in conjunction with the Technical Committee ("TC") and Craig Hunt, the California Group's technical expert, are reviewing the results of Microsoft's project to rewrite the technical documentation, described in detail in previous status reports, and are providing feedback to Microsoft on what additional work is still needed.1

2

Since the prior Joint Status Report, Microsoft has completed producing all of the documents in the Milestone schedule, including the last group of documents that were added to cover an update to the Windows Server 2008 ("Longhorn") product. Microsoft continues to address issues in the documents that have been identified by the TC and by Microsoft itself; this work will continue over time in order to ensure the overall quality of the documentation.

Three recent matters relating to Microsoft's progress in improving the documentation are worth noting. First, the TC determined that in the process of revising the technical documentation, Microsoft removed a number of protocol elements that were included in previous versions of the documentation. When this same issue arose last year, Microsoft and the TC discussed that Microsoft would not remove protocol elements from the documentation without first discussing it with the TC in order to ensure that there was no substantive disagreement. Plaintiffs are concerned that the same problem has occurred again. In some cases there may be perfectly valid and sufficient reasons for removing certain protocol elements,2 but it is important for the stability of the documentation that the TC review the proposed deletions before they occur, as Microsoft and the TC previously agreed.

Second, and on a related note, the TC has suggested to Microsoft that it would be extremely beneficial to the TC and licensees to create a mechanism for detailing changes between versions of the documentation. Currently, it is difficult to tell exactly what has changed

3

when Microsoft releases a new version of the documentation. This slows down the TC in its work by making it difficult to evaluate revisions to the documentation and causes issues such as the one discussed in the previous paragraph, where it is difficult for the TC (and Microsoft itself) to determine whether protocol elements have been removed from the documentation. Licensees have also informed the TC that the absence of version-to-version change information complicates product development. Microsoft was receptive to the TC's suggestion and will work with the TC to develop an effective mechanism to track changes to the documentation.

Finally, at the beginning of the year Microsoft changed the schedule for publishing updated technical documentation from monthly to quarterly. The TC's experience with this change has not been positive, as it creates a longer lag time between the identification of issues in the documentation and the publication of fixes to those issues. Licensees have expressed similar concerns to the TC. The TC therefore raised this issue with Microsoft in a recent meeting, and Microsoft agreed to increase the frequency of publishing updates to the documentation.

As discussed in the prior Joint Status Report, as part of the original documentation plan Microsoft committed to producing a final set of overview documents that explain how the MCPP protocols work together. The TC determined that the initial set of documents was not adequate and the Plaintiffs and the TC therefore informed Microsoft that significant additional work was necessary. Microsoft agreed to create a set of additional "system" documents which would provide more detailed information on the interaction between the protocols in a number of complex scenarios. At the end of March, Microsoft provided the TC with three pilot system documents to evaluate Microsoft's proposed template for the new system documents. The TC

4

recently gave Microsoft feedback on the pilot documents by identifying a number of technical documentation issues; as a general matter, the TC was concerned with the overall quality of the pilot documents. The TC previously informed Microsoft that it believes there needs to be more than one template for the system documents. Now that the TC has completed its review of the pilot documents, the TC and Microsoft will discuss over the next few weeks what modifications to the template are necessary -- including the issue of whether one template is sufficient or whether two templates would be more effective -- and what steps should be taken to ensure that subsequent documents meet everyone's expectations in terms of quality.

Microsoft has developed a list of nineteen system documents it plans to create and developed a rough, high-level schedule for producing these documents. As Microsoft describes in its section of this report, Microsoft plans to publish drafts of all nineteen documents by the end of March 2009 and to publish the final version of all system documents by the end of June 2009. Once Microsoft and the TC finalize the template (or templates) for the system documents, Microsoft will develop a more detailed schedule with a number of identifiable deliverables over time. As with the earlier phases of the reset project, establishing individual milestones for particular groups of system documents will allow Plaintiffs and the TC to assess the quality of the newly-created documents in a more orderly way, to provide Microsoft with timely feedback, and to monitor Microsoft's progress in meeting its schedule commitments. Plaintiffs and Microsoft will provide the Court with this detailed plan when it is available. As with the reset project itself, experience in preparing the system documents over time may result in changes to the current list of nineteen documents such as adding additional documents, combining documents, or shifting subject matter between documents.

5

Finally, as disclosed in the last Joint Status Report, in February Microsoft publicly announced a wide-ranging change in its licensing practices for interoperability information, which will directly affect the MCPP. At that time, Microsoft published all of the technical documentation created pursuant to the MCPP on the Microsoft Developer Network (MSDN). It is therefore no longer necessary to sign an MCPP license to obtain access to the MCPP technical documentation. Microsoft has also published online a list of the patents and patent applications that it claims apply to each protocol in MCPP and has made available a license for these patents.

Plaintiffs reviewed the patent license once it was announced and discussed with Microsoft the changes to the MCPP licensing structure. As a general matter, Plaintiffs believe that the publication of the technical documentation and the substantial reduction in royalties, as compared to the previous license, are positive steps, which will encourage wider use of the protocols in the MCPP (possibly beyond the use envisaged by the Final Judgments) and thereby promote interoperability with Windows clients. Plaintiffs did raise several issues with Microsoft regarding the new patent license, and Microsoft agreed to revise the license to address these matters. Plaintiffs wanted to ensure that future licensees had the same legal rights under the license that existing licensees possess. Most significantly, Plaintiffs requested Microsoft carry over into the new patent license:

(1) the legally binding guarantee of the timeliness of future documentation updates and the quality of the documentation; and (2) the indemnification provisions in the previous license. Microsoft was receptive to these concerns and has posted a revised patent license which adds the relevant provisions from the previous MCPP license.

6

B. Competing Middleware and Defaults3

Plaintiff States and the TC continue to monitor developments regarding Windows XP and Windows Vista to assure compliance with the Final Judgments. This includes ongoing testing by the TC of Windows Vista, Vista Service Pack ("SP") 1, XP SP 3, Windows Media Player 11, Internet Explorer ("IE") 7 and the IE 8 beta, to discover any remaining middleware-related issues. In addition, Microsoft has recently authorized TC access to another early build of Windows 7 (the successor to Vista), which the TC will review. As the builds of Windows 7 progress, the TC will conduct middleware-related tests in an effort to assure that bugs fixed in Vista do not re-appear in the next operating system, as well as to assure Final Judgment compliance generally.

Additionally, the TC's on-going review of Windows' treatment of middleware defaults is being expanded to include an operating system source code scan in an effort to determine whether some commonality in the code accounts for default overrides. The TC also is investigating certain default browser overrides, which Microsoft asserts arise from reasonable technical requirements that competing browsers apparently do not implement. The TC will discuss its findings with Microsoft once this inquiry is concluded.

Microsoft has released publicly a beta version of IE 8. The TC is testing the beta, and familiarizing itself with the operation of IE 8's more significant new features.

7

The TC continues to meet with leading ISVs and PC manufacturers to discuss issues relating to middleware, the default mechanisms in Vista, and the options available to OEMs under the Final Judgments, as well as other Final Judgment-related concerns that industry participants may choose to raise.

The transitioning to Microsoft of the TC's testing methods and tools regarding the middleware-related portions of the Final Judgments also continues. These methods and tools will assist Microsoft in its public commitment to apply to its products the middleware-related principles embodied in the Final Judgments.

The TC also participated in the investigation of the unresolved complaint, discussed by the Plaintiff States below.

C. Complaints

The Plaintiff States' Interim Status Report on Microsoft's Compliance with the Final Judgments, filed December 7, 2007, informed the Court of two complaints. One remains under investigation, as Plaintiffs have engaged in various activities in the nature of discovery. This particular complaint was made prior to November 2007, and the United States is, accordingly, involved in its investigation.4

8

III. UPDATE ON MICROSOFT'S COMPLIANCE WITH THE FINAL JUDGMENTS

In this section of the report, Microsoft focuses on its compliance work relating to Section III.E of the Final Judgments. In addition, this section briefly summarizes the activities of the compliance officers under the Final Judgments, as well as the inquiries and complaints received by Microsoft since the February 29, 2008 Joint Status Report.

A. Section III.E (Communications Protocol Licensing)

1. MCPP Status Update

Pursuant to Microsoft's recently announced interoperability principles, documentation for Microsoft's Communications Protocols have been made available free of charge on Microsoft's website. Through June 1, 2008, documents describing protocols that are made available pursuant to the Final Judgments have been downloaded over 146,000 times.5

To date, there are a total of 49 companies licensing patents for Communications Protocols pursuant to Section III.E of the Final Judgments, 36 of which have royalty bearing licenses. Since the previous Joint Status Report, the following companies have signed a patent license: Brocade, CrossTree, e-trees and Beijing Yuxing Software. Currently, Microsoft is aware of 14 patent licensees that are shipping products under the MCPP. Numerous other entities may be making use of the protocol documentation that has been made available to the public on the MSDN website.6

Since the last Joint Status Report, Microsoft has continued to promote offers for MCPP licensees to receive Technical Account Manager support and to obtain access to Windows source

9

code at no additional charge. To date, 28 licensees have signed up with Microsoft to receive free Technical Account Manager support, and 6 licensees have signed up for Windows source code access.

2. Microsoft's Progress in Modifying the Technical Documentation

As previously reported, Microsoft has delivered all of the Milestones associated with the "rewrite" program. In addition to this documentation, Microsoft has produced additional overview/reference materials in order to assist licensees in using the technical documentation.

While Microsoft firmly believes that the current protocol documentation available to implementers enables interoperability with Windows and fully complies with the Final Judgments, in response to the Technical Committee's ("TC") request, Microsoft is undertaking a new effort to supplement the existing protocol documentation with additional "System" documents. As part of this process, on March 31, 2008, Microsoft delivered three initial System documents to the TC. Last week Microsoft received feedback from the TC in on these three documents in the form of TDIs. Microsoft is in the process of evaluating this newly-received feedback. In addition, Microsoft has delivered a fourth System document to the TC on June 9, 2008. The first three System documents will be added to MSDN once the website is updated at the end of June 2008.

Microsoft currently is planning to produce a total of 19 System documents. Due to the complexity, volume, and novelty of the System documents, Microsoft expects to publish drafts of all 19 documents no later than the end of the first quarter of 2009. Microsoft then expects to publish all of the System documents in final form by the end of second quarter of 2009. Following a review of the newly-received feedback and a related dialogue with the TC,

10

Microsoft will develop various milestones to aid in the delivery of the System documents.

Microsoft has also discussed with the TC the possibility of tracking changes to the documentation in a systematic fashion. These discussions have been productive and Microsoft is now exploring ways to present version-to-version change information in an efficient manner.

Finally, Microsoft is also working on increasing the frequency with which it publishes the protocol documentation. Microsoft has not yet determined the optimal release schedule, but is planning to increase the frequency from the current quarterly schedule. Microsoft will present a revised release schedule to the TC in the upcoming weeks.

3. Current Status of Microsoft's Progress in Resolving Technical Documentation Issues ("TDIs") through May 31, 2008

In light of the volume and complexity of the new technical documentation, it is inevitable that additional TDIs will emerge in the newly rewritten documentation. As part of its analysis, the TC is identifying TDIs in the new Online Build documentation according to the three priority levels that were described in the March 6, 2007 Joint Status Report. The current status of TDIs identified in rewritten documentation through May 31, 2008, is noted in the chart below. The total number of TDIs spans the entire range of rewritten MCPP documentation as well as some of the overview materials and should be considered in the context of more than 20,000 pages of MCPP technical documentation.7

11

New Documentation TDIs As of 4/30/2008 Period Ended 5/31/2008
Priority 1 TDIs Submitted by the TC
Submitted this period 16
Closed this period 21
Outstanding 127 122
Priority 2 TDIs Submitted by the TC
Submitted this period 41
Closed this period 24
Outstanding 220 237
Priority 3 TDIs Submitted by the TC
Submitted this period 35
Closed this period 8
Outstanding 61 88
TC Submitted 92
TC Closed 53
TC Outstanding 408 447
TDIs Identified by Microsoft
Identified this period 691
Closed this period 535
Microsoft Outstanding 599 755
TDIs Identified by Licensees
Identified this period 8
Closed this period 2
Licensees Outstanding 6 12
TDIs Identified by TC in Overview/Reference Materials
Identified this period 5
Closed this period 14

13

Overview Outstanding 64 55
TDIs Identified by TC in System Documents
Identified this Period 7
Closed this Period 0
System Outstanding 0 7
Total Outstanding 1077 1276

4. Technical Documentation Testing

a. Protocol Test Suite

Since the previous Status Report, Microsoft has continued its efforts to test the newly rewritten protocol documentation. Microsoft finished its testing on Cluster 5, during which Microsoft completed test passes on approximately 30 documents. As is the normal practice, Microsoft and the TC met to review the results of this Cluster. Microsoft is continuing the testing of Cluster 6, which will be complete by June 30, 2008.

b. Interoperability Lab

On August 30, 2006, Microsoft announced to MCPP licensees the availability, at no charge, of Microsoft's Interoperability Lab in the Microsoft Enterprise Engineering Center for testing licensee implementations of MCPP protocols. The Interoperability Lab offers direct access to Microsoft product development teams and technical support from Microsoft's engineering staff to address issues that may arise during testing. Microsoft completed an interoperability lab with one licensee during March 2008. It completed another interoperability lab with a licensee in May. Microsoft received very positive feedback from Licensees on both events.

13

c. Plug-fests

Microsoft held a file-sharing plug-fest the first week of June 2008. This event was the largest plug-fest thus far. The following entities attended: Apple, Inc.; SAMBA; SNIA; Sun Microsystems, Inc.; Blue Coat Systems, Inc.; EMC Corporation; Isilon Systems, Inc.; and NetApp. Microsoft received positive feedback on this event. Additionally, Microsoft is planning two plug-fests for later in 2008 (for Media Streaming and Active Directory).

5. Technical Documentation Team Staffing

Robert Muglia, the Senior Vice President for Microsoft's Server and Tools Business, continues to manage the documentation effort along with additional senior product engineering team managers.

Over 750 Microsoft employees and contingent staff are involved in work on the MCPP technical documentation. Given the substantial overlap between the MCPP and the European Work Group Server Protocol Program, all of these individuals devote their efforts to work that relates to both programs or that is exclusive to the MCPP.

Of these, approximately 320 product team engineers and program managers are actively involved in the creation and review of the technical content of the documentation. There are over 25 full-time employees and over 50 contingent staff working as technical writers, editors, and production technicians. Additionally, as the protocol testing effort continues, approximately 40 full-time employees and approximately 360 contingent and vendor staff work as software test designers, test engineers, and test architects. Significant attention to and involvement in the technical documentation and the MCPP extend through all levels of the Microsoft organization and draw upon the resources of numerous product engineering, business, technical, and legal

14

groups, as well as company management.

B. Compliance Officers

Since the Initial Status Report was filed on July 3, 2003, the compliance officers have continued to ensure that newly-appointed Microsoft officers and directors receive copies of the Final Judgments and related materials (ongoing), that Microsoft officers and directors receive annual briefings on the meaning and requirements of the Final Judgments (Microsoft completed the annual training sessions for 2007), that annual certifications are completed for the most recent year (completed in December 2007), and that required compliance-related records are maintained (ongoing). In addition, the compliance officers are actively engaged in Microsoft's ongoing training programs and committed to monitoring matters pertaining to the Final Judgments.

C. Complaints and Inquiries Received by Microsoft

As of June 17, 2008, Microsoft has received seven complaints or inquiries since the February 29, 2008 Joint Status Report. None of these complaints or inquiries was related to any of Microsoft's compliance obligations under the Final Judgments.

15

Dated: June 17, 2008


Respectfully submitted,


FOR THE STATES OF NEW YORK,
OHIO, ILLINOIS, KENTUCKY,
LOUISIANA, MARYLAND, MICHIGAN
NORTH CAROLINA, AND WISCONSIN

_______________/s/________________
ANDREW M. CUOMO
Attorney General of New York
JAY L. HIMES
Chief, Antitrust Bureau
Assistant Attorney General
[address, phone]

FOR THE STATES OF CALIFORNIA,
CONNECTICUT, IOWA, KANSAS,
FLORIDA, MASSACHUSETTS, MINNESOTA,
UTAH, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
_______________/s/________________
KATHLEEN FOOTE
Senior Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General of California
[address, phone]

FOR THE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE'S
ANTITRUST DIVISION

_______________/s/________________
AARON D. HOAG
JAMES J. TIERNEY
SCOTT A. SCHEELE
ADAM T. SEVERT
Trial Attorneys
U.S. Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
[address, phone]

BRADFORD L. SMITH
MARY SNAPP
DAVID A. HEINER, JR.
Microsoft Corporation
[address, phone]

FOR DEFENDANT MICROSOFT
CORPORATION

_______________/s/________________
CHARLES F. RULE
JONATHAN S. KANTER
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP
[address, phone]

STEVE L. HOLLEY
RICHARD C. PEPPERMAN II
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
[address, phone]

Counsel for Defendant
Microsoft Corporation


FOOTNOTES

1 The TC is working closely with Mr. Hunt on all of these technical documentation issues. References to Microsoft working with the TC throughout this report should be taken to include Mr. Hunt as well.

2 For example, Microsoft or the TC might have discovered that a particular protocol element does not actually pass over the wire between a Windows server and a Windows client, but rather is merely internal within the Windows server and therefore does not need to be documented as part of the MCPP.

3 The provisions of the United States' Final Judgment not relating to Section III.E (Communications Protocol Licensing) expired in November 2007. This part of the Joint Status Report therefore covers the joint enforcement activities of the New York Group and the California Group.

4 The second complaint -- relating to a Vista user's ability to run virtualization software on Vista Home Basic and Home Premium -- had been satisfactorily resolved as of the February 2008 status conference.

5 Each download includes either an individual document or a set of documents.

6 A number of the protocols made available to the public are not covered by any Microsoft patents and thus do not require a license.

7 The TDI numbers as of April 30, 2007, reported in this chart differ slightly from the numbers provided in the previous Status Report because the dynamic nature of tracking TDIs in multiple databases occasionally results in categorization and exact TDI closure dates changing after the previous reporting period.

As to the category “TDIs identified by licensees,” in most cases licensees do not open TDIs themselves. Licensees generally ask Microsoft questions about the documentation. Most questions do not result in any TDIs. In some cases, questions from licensees result in a TDI being filed by the Microsoft employees involved in answering the licensees’ questions. In these circumstances, Microsoft categorizes the TDI as a licensee TDI.

16


  


Microsoft-DOJ Joint Status Report June 17, 2008 | 118 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Here
Authored by: lordshipmayhem on Friday, June 20 2008 @ 09:55 PM EDT
Please state the error & correction in the title

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic here
Authored by: lordshipmayhem on Friday, June 20 2008 @ 09:56 PM EDT
Please make all links clickable!! Thanks!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks discussions here
Authored by: lordshipmayhem on Friday, June 20 2008 @ 09:57 PM EDT
Please state the news item in the title, thanks!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft-DOJ Joint Status Report June 17, 2008
Authored by: eschasi on Friday, June 20 2008 @ 09:59 PM EDT
I have been told repeatedly by Microsoft employees that they themselves can't
find valid documentation for the things the DOJ is asking for. Thus they read
the code (ick) and take their best guess. The end result is that there is no
standard.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Proof positive you should *NEVER* buy M$ products
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 20 2008 @ 10:24 PM EDT
Yeah, yeah, it would be easy to call M$ a bunch of crooks. A bunch of liars and
cheats. Criminals maybe. But we all know they would *never* do anything
improper or illegal. So what does this mean?

It means you should NEVER buy an M$ product. 'Cuz if they're not crooks, liars,
or cheats - and we all know those monikers don't apply to Bill and Steve - then
they *MUST* be incompetent and why would you buy anything from a bunch of
incompetent bunglers? But if you are so inclined, let me know - I have a great
bridge in New York to sell you too.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Eyeballs for ODF - the Groklaw discussion thread
Authored by: bbaston on Friday, June 20 2008 @ 10:38 PM EDT
For Groklaw's benefit - whether participating over at OASIS or just passing by - here's the place to post.

PJ reminds those of us monitoring the discussion to
"Stay polite at all times, of course, if you say anything, and you needn't say anything, but do follow along and please keep us posted on anything you see that sounds peculiar."


OASIS discussion list for ODF Implementation, Interoperability and Conformance

Some relevent information includes formation of this discussion and archive of all discussion emails (pick date or thread - direct access doesn't seem to work).

A work-in-progress of the result so far - the draft charter is hosted at: http://sites.google.com/a/od fiic.org/tc/Home

---
IMBW, IANAL2, IMHO, IAVO
imaybewrong, iamnotalawyertoo, inmyhumbleopinion, iamveryold

[ Reply to This | # ]

protecting incompetence; delaying inevitable
Authored by: grouch on Friday, June 20 2008 @ 11:31 PM EDT
Microsoft knows full well that its "business" will die when the artificial barriers they have created are removed. If the costs associated with those artifical barriers are lowered, both businesses and individual computer users will be able to choose based on quality and value. Microsoft has relied so long upon barriers to competition and customer data lock-in that they do not and probably cannot compete on either quality or value.

Just like SCO, Microsoft will do everything they can to delay their inevitable demise. Just like SCO, Microsoft will waste everything they have in a futile attempt to force the world to accept their selfish fantasy as reality.

---
-- grouch

[ Reply to This | # ]

bugs fixed in Vista
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 20 2008 @ 11:45 PM EDT
It seems a bit odd to me that the DOJ would be in the business of fixing bugs.
I note that this is mentioned in the section "Competing Middleware and
Defaults". I wonder if these so-called "bugs" have anything to
do with MS programs not cooperating with competitors.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ridiculous as Usual
Authored by: zma0472 on Saturday, June 21 2008 @ 01:03 AM EDT
Oooh! I wanna play! What are the rules? I've gathered so far that we're all
pretending that the US court system has at least a tiny shred of integrity; that
it isn't rotted clean through with corruption; and that it will some day in the
distant glorious future hand down at least a molecule of genuine punishment for
wrongdoing to somebody. Am I warm?

In this instance, I take it, we're making believe that the Bush administration
didn't cash a big fat check from MS back in 2000 and then hand Bill & Steve
the keys to the handcuffs, right? Because, like, we're too stupid to put 2 and
2 together on that one. Right? Just like we believe that Bush got elected to
the White House fair & square. Right? This is almost as fun as watching
Darl and his cronies laugh all the way to the bank for five straight years while
steadfastly making believe that they'll be held accountable some day. Right?

'Cause we all know that the US courts are super duper powerful and important
and that their orders cannot be flaunted. No sir. The courts are sober
deliberative bodies, feared and respected by rich an poor alike. They're gonna
set things right in the end. You'll see.

Yessiree, those bad old guys are really gonna get it from the big powerful
legal system. BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Sorry! I'm sorry! I just can't do it with a
straight face. I don't think I can play after all. This is idiotic.

I guess that the truly amazing part of the blogger phenomenon is that the
brilliant blazing arc lamp of scrutiny does absolutely NOTHING to the processes
of corruption. Like everybody else, I assumed that once the lights came on, the
rats and roaches would run for cover, but, astoundingly, it's biz as usual,
folks. Nobody goes to jail. Nobody pays one dime of meaningful fines. Nobody
stops breaking the law. Nothing. Jeez, I have to say, I did expect Microsoft
and SCO and all the rest to at least find some new way of hiding their
nastiness. But no! They have discovered that there are no adverse consequences
to their nefarious deeds. So they just go swimming merrily along right out in
the open. That is the part I didn't see coming.

Keep digging, PJ. God love ya, I just don't see how you stand the stench.
And do make sure to let me know when the US courts hand down the fire and
brimstone. I wouldn't want to miss the big day.

[ Reply to This | # ]

These statements seem to reflect Microsoft's tendency to talk big and deliver small.
Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, June 21 2008 @ 01:43 AM EDT

The quote is used to describe MS in relation to normal business practice - not
court related problems - but on reading it, it struck me as being a shorthand
way of understanding the total that is MS.

"Microsoft [...] talk big and deliver small."

yeah that sounds right.

full article:
"Microsoft should buy Rackable instead of building custom computers"
By Ashlee Vance in Mountain View (ashlee.vance@theregister.co.uk)
Published Friday 20th June 2008 19:07 GMT

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/20/microsoft_rackable_buy/print.html
---
Were Microsoft a hard-charging, forward-thinking company rather than a reactive
laggard, it might choose to address this new reality by purchasing Rackable
Systems of all things. It may sound crazy, but here's why it's not.

Last month, Microsoft's infrastructure chief Debra Chrapaty gave a speech which
failed to attract the attention it deserved. Speaking at the Microsoft
Management Summit in Las Vegas, she outlined the company's aggressive plans to
build out its computing systems. Chrapaty, during the speech, went so far as to
confirm that Microsoft will start building its own systems a la Google.

"We're also doing some other innovations," she said. "You know,
when you think about the servers, you can just design servers that use less
power, and so we're doing that. We're working on our own server design, our own
motherboard design, chip design."

It's hard to tell how seriously we're meant to take that statement.

For one, it's more than vague, since Chrapaty is claiming that Microsoft will do
its own chip designs. We doubt that Redmond plans to build a chip fabrication
plant anytime soon, so we think she just meant that Microsoft is incorporating
low-power processors into its custom motherboards.

Beyond that, however, there's just no indication that Microsoft is actually
building its own gear. The most radical infrastructure thing Microsoft has done
to date is to go the whole hog with the data center-in- a-container idea.
Microsoft is in the middle of building a massive data center in Chicago, which
will feature hundreds of the containers. Our sources indicate that Microsoft has
no intention of filling these containers with its own systems. Instead, it's
asking the likes of Rackable and Dell to craft very demanding boxes.

These statements seem to reflect Microsoft's tendency to talk big and deliver
small. (Do we really need to point you at Vista?)
---

---
MR. ACKER: The way this works is I ask questions and you answer them.
It's unfortunate that way.
NOVELL: ERIC M. ACKER
WITNESS: Darl Charles McBride
04/30/0

[ Reply to This | # ]

This raises rather huge business questions
Authored by: Peter Baker on Saturday, June 21 2008 @ 01:48 AM EDT
I read their inability to provide proper documentation differently. From a
practical point of view this suggests that MS does not run proper quality
controls on their software, which may go some way to explain the poor state of
it.

What's more, the inability to make progress shows nil commitment to GET to a
managed state. This is the software your business relies on to do its pricing
(see the formula mess in MS OOXML) and to prepare documents with (Which secret
do you want to leak today?).

It sort of explains the mess named Vista..


---

= P =

[ Reply to This | # ]

Anyone know who the Judge is?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 21 2008 @ 04:49 AM EDT
Just curious.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ch-ch-changes/Where's your shame?
Authored by: Parsi on Saturday, June 21 2008 @ 06:58 AM EDT
> "will work with the TC to develop an effective mechanism to track
changes to the documentation"

Gosh, that's going to be difficult. Kinda like inventing 'diff' from scratch.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Evangelism is war
Authored by: PolR on Saturday, June 21 2008 @ 07:31 AM EDT
Many posters have repeated the often stated opinion that lack of document denotes technical incompetence and lack of due process. This kind of excuses could be considered accurate the first few years. But when writing documentation is a decade long Sisyphus task, I am afraid something else is also at work. After all the state of Windows has been frozen for nearly five years during the development of Vista. Even if writing doc is a nearly unsurmountable task for them, they should have been able to release at least a few binders of information, even if incomplete.

This is where I suggest we read back the classic "Evangelism is war" document. They talk very clearly on how documentation should be treated. I extract a few relevant slides for your convenience.

The first series is from the first Powerpoint in the PDF. It shows that Microsoft is evangelizing the independent software vendors (ISV) to establish Microsoft platforms as the de facto standard.


"We're Just Here to
Help Developers"

(Slide 3)

"We're NOT Just Here to
Help Developers"

(Slide 4)

"We're Here to Help
MICROSOFT"

(Slide 5)

Evangelism is WAR!"

  • Mission
    • Establish Microsoft's platform as de facto standards
  • Enemies
    • Other platform vendors
  • Battlefield
    • ISV Mindshare
  • Progress
    • Shipping ISV applications


Summary

  • We're here to help Microsoft...
  • ...By helping those ISVs...
  • ...That can help Microsoft...
  • ...Achieve its objectives.
(Slide 25)
[PolR] Now scroll down the original document to the section titled "Power and how to use it". It is a Powerpoint near the end of the PDF.

This series of slides elaborates on one of the tactics they use to get the ISV to do what they want. The build up their power and exert it on the ISVs. Documentation is one of the coins they trade for building this power.


YOU have POWER!

  • Power
    • The ability to GET THINGS DONE
  • Source of Power
    • The ability to control the distribution of valuable resources
  • Exchange of Resources

Exchange of Resources

  • Trading favors
    • "if you help me, I'll help you"
    • ALWAYS return favors
    • NEVER work with someone who has failed to return a favor
  • Help people!
    • Then they owe you a favor in return
  • You have MANY resources

    Resources

  • Information
    • The ultimate resource
  • Specifications
  • Betas
  • SDKs
  • Free Products
  • Knowledge

[PolR]

Here we get the picture. Microsoft views information as "the ultimate resource" and therefore the ultimate source of power they have over ISVs. The ability to control the distribution of documentation is one of the things that give them power over the ISVs. If Microsoft makes the information available, they lose the ability to control the distribution and this power vanishes.

Now what do they do with this power? Scroll back at the beginning to slides 23 and 23 of the "Evangelism is War" Powerpoint.


Enlightened Self-Interest

  • We help ISV to help ourselves
  • But we really do help them
  • We fight for our ISV's
    • APIs, hooks, tool support
    • Design Reviews
    • Strategies, timelines, etc.
    • ... because we need their support for our own ends

Too Many to Help

  • Can't help 'em all
  • We help those who can help us
  • If they can't or won't help us
    • Screw'em!
    • Help their competitors instead

So Microsoft provides genuine useful help to ISVs that help them by supporting their platforms. But Microsoft gets to cherry pick which ISV they help. If the ISV doesn't help them as they wish, the Microsoft help will dry up and go to the competitors. Documentation is part of the help. Imagine an ISV trying to develop new products without access to documentation, SDKs, beta tests etc. ISVs just can't be competitive without that.

The anti-trust requirement to publish the documentation is actually a demand to stop this practice with regards to documentation. It is a demand to forego much of the power Microsoft holds over ISVs.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Documentation vs. Seat of the Pants
Authored by: gtall on Saturday, June 21 2008 @ 08:18 AM EDT
I've long suspected that M$ cannot get away from roots of a culture that Gates
instilled early on. I don't believe they ever had adequate internal
documentation for anything. Rather, they built stuff that was merely whacked
together and their final products show this. A real software company, when asked
to produce documentation, would usually have it on hand and ready to turnover. A
Micky Mouse organization when asked would have to spend massive resources
attempting to document a pile of spaghetti code that has little clean internal
structure.

Given a small enough problem, you can throw a lot of engineers at it and get it
documented. If the DoJ was asking for lots of systems or large systems to be
documented, then M$ is out of luck.

Gerry

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft-DOJ Joint Status Report June 17, 2008
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 21 2008 @ 08:50 AM EDT
Windows 7 will be out in 2009. Will the documentation cover all the new stuff
they've added there so you can interface properly? What about Longhorn? (Yes,
that's still out there.) Is the stuff they are dropping for Windows XP, which
they are no longer selling, but which everyone refuses to switch from. (I have
two weeks to buy a backup copy of XP if I'm going to do it.)

They don't build to standards in the first place. You can tell this from their
IDE, Visual Basic. Maybe they fixed it with .Net, but somehow I doubt it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

raison d'etre for the ever changing protocols ..
Authored by: emacsuser on Saturday, June 21 2008 @ 09:03 AM EDT
"Microsoft has been changing protocols without notice to the technical committee"

That's precisely the whole reason detre of Microsoft continuously re-inventing communication protocols, to gain total control of the Infobahn and to keep the opposition for ever playing catchup and forever wrong footed.

It's ironic that a communications company expends so much effort in preventing their computers communicating with other computers. For instance, it seems that every new version of Windows breaks SAMBA, despite Microsoft having a Linux lab. MS also took the Kerberos protocol and re-innovated it into Microsoft-Kerberos. Again, didn't aks anyone or even consult the developers. Doesn't matter if some third party produces the next killer Internet platform, it most certainly won't work with the next iteration of Windows. As Catbert would have put it PURR, PURR PURR !

"Linux can win as long as services / protocols are commodities .. By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we can deny OSS projects entry into the market"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Two years later, it's nowhere near as funny.
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 22 2008 @ 05:06 AM EDT
Yup, that's how I feel about SCO litigation, but that's been going for what, 7
years? 8?

The courts could have saved a LOT of time by telling SCO that if they want to
change their statements they should create a new case, no "we're talking
about patents and copyrights. no, now we're talking about methods and concepts.
no, changed again, license and contract breech". This should have been
three cases: patents and copyrights closed or resolved SEPARATELY. New one with
the claim of methods, etc.

[ Reply to This | # ]

And if you don't ...
Authored by: overshoot on Sunday, June 22 2008 @ 12:37 PM EDT
Well, let's see what the incentive structure here is:
  • If Microsoft complies, they lose a market advantage.
  • If Microsoft doesn't comply, they spend more time with the Court waiting to comply.
I wish I could get terms like that on loans: "I see that you haven't made a payment for the last seven years. If you don't make your payments, we can't retire the loan. I'm afraid you'll have to continue owing us the money until it's paid."

Sweet deal if you can get it, no?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Penelope not Sisyphus
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 24 2008 @ 07:43 AM EDT
"It appears from that record that no matter what Microsoft tries or how
diligently they work at it or how many employees they assign to this noble task
of providing interoperability documentation, it just can't be done. Microsoft is
like Sisyphus of old, working every day with all its might to get that boulder
to the top of the hill, only to see it fall back down again, throughout
eternity. Of course, you might point out that his troubles are a myth.
Microsoft's are real. You think? You might also recall the API issue that
surfaced in the Comes v. Microsoft litigation."

Diligently weaving all day in front of her unwanted suitors, unraveling it at
night so as to never finish. For every coder MS has documenting I bet they have
two "innovating" new code that will need to be documented.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Managed in EU - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 24 2008 @ 08:06 AM EDT
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 )