|
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.
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, 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 Defaults
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
|
|
Authored by: lordshipmayhem on Friday, June 20 2008 @ 09:55 PM EDT |
Please state the error & correction in the title [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: lordshipmayhem on Friday, June 20 2008 @ 09:56 PM EDT |
Please make all links clickable!! Thanks!! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: lordshipmayhem on Friday, June 20 2008 @ 09:57 PM EDT |
Please state the news item in the title, thanks!! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
- Microsoft-DOJ Joint Status Report June 17, 2008 - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 20 2008 @ 10:24 PM EDT
- Microsoft-DOJ Joint Status Report June 17, 2008 - Authored by: red floyd on Friday, June 20 2008 @ 11:02 PM EDT
- Amateur coders hired by amateur humans...n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 21 2008 @ 12:33 AM EDT
- pull the other one - Authored by: kh on Saturday, June 21 2008 @ 03:44 AM EDT
- It makes me wonder how they communicate within their own company products, etc. - Authored by: Starlite528 on Saturday, June 21 2008 @ 06:55 AM EDT
- Microsoft-DOJ Joint Status Report June 17, 2008 - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 21 2008 @ 10:30 AM EDT
- So WRITE ONE - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 22 2008 @ 04:53 AM EDT
- Theroy: The punished for bugs - Authored by: Winter on Sunday, June 22 2008 @ 10:42 AM EDT
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 21 2008 @ 04:49 AM EDT |
Just curious.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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
- Battlefield
- 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
- 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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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
|
|
|
|