Microsoft Surrenders to the EU Bully

From the desk of Chresten Anderson on Sat, 2006-02-18 11:52

Last month Microsoft caved in and opened up the source code of its Windows Server operating system, in an effort to appease the European Union and avoid a possible 2 million euro per day fine. The threat of the additional fine is the last in a long range of aggressive attacks on large companies from the European Commission.

As we know from history appeasement does not work. When you try to bribe the school bully he comes back the next day. Of course, unlike some others, Microsoft is helpless before this bully and cannot really do anything but comply or fight the court battles.

Last December Microsoft’s General Counsel Brad Smith indicated frustration when he stated that,

In total, we have now responded to more than 100 requests from the Commission. We continue working quickly to meet the Commission’s new and changing demands. Yet every time we make a change, we find that the Commission moves the goal post and demands another change.

So it is not surprising that the Bureaucratic Brussels Bully is still not satisfied with the software giant’s attempts to comply with the March 2004 ruling, which included a gargantuan fine of 497 million euros as well as the moronic demand for a version of Windows without the company's media player software, which Microsoft released last year. The other demand from the commission was for Microsoft to give away its intellectual property and disclose the source code of Windows Server networking protocols to third party developers.

All this involves very technical aspects, which means that in order to prove that it is complying the company is basically obliged to hand over information which even the Commission says it does not require.

Microsoft has had hundreds of employees working for 30,000 hours to create some 12,000 pages of technical documents. The company has also agreed to provide 500 hours of technical support and it has opened up its source code to anyone who obtains a license to view it.

To further back up its claim that the company had complied with the EU demands Microsoft sent the Commission a report with its response. The report, which was written by five computer science professors in the United Kingdom and Germany, stated:

We believe that [the interoperability information] has provided complete and accurate information, to the extent that this can be reasonably achieved, covering protocols, dependencies and implicit knowledge.

The EU Commission swiftly reminded the media and Microsoft that it is the European Commission’s responsibility, and not Microsoft’s, to decide whether it was in compliance. So the EU prosecutor is simultaneously adopting the roles of the judge and jury. In the light of the Commission’s anti-trust and competition policy so far, one can be pretty sure that it will still refuse to acknowledge compliance.

The saddest thing in all this is that European consumers are the real victims of the European Commission’s crusade against companies that serve their customers well.

For once The Brussels Journal got it all wrong.

Submitted by kepiblanc on Mon, 2006-02-20 14:36.

Microsoft is the one bullying all competition, effectviely making it impossible for small or midsize companies - like most European ones - to develope software.  This kerfuffle about the EU Commission vs. Microsoft is nothing but a stunt in order to get the Commission at least some credibility in the  software commuity.  The "gargantuan" fine is just deposited in a Microsoft account, not payed to any EU account.  And removing the media player from Windows is  a gimmick : the depleted version comes with the same price tag, so nobody buys it.

One doesn't have to look any further than the ongoing issue on the Software Patens Directive, where  Microsoft and the EU Commission are in cahoot together, trying to stiffle any remaining signs of innovation in Europe.

Chresten Anderson - who resides in Copenhagen - could have done his homework just by asking the anti-EU parties in the Danish parliament or his minister of trade, the halal-hippie Mr. Bendt Bendtsen (aka Bendt Patendtsen).

 

This is backwards

Submitted by happycorpse on Mon, 2006-02-20 05:06.

Microsoft is the Bully, EU is merely acting as the police.

You would not want to live in a world where anyone could
get away with robbing you, and go unpunished.

Microsoft charges high prices for crap, and can get away with this because of their effective monopoly. They've held down (and held back) the computer industry for years.

And you and I are paying for this, with our money, our time, and by the lack of progress that Microsoft has historically enforced.

let's be clear: micrsoft is the bully not EU or DOJ

Submitted by zahadum on Sun, 2006-02-19 20:50.

the facts overwhelming indicate that ms has had a consistent policy of violating both intellectual property rights (sued by many companies - Go, Wang, Stacker, Apple etc etc), as well as the various anti-trust laws (long list).

ms has not produced a single major innovation (look at the patents - none of them are breakthroughs).

ms has illegaly abused its market power.

when a regulator punishes a violator - that is not bulling, it is called Justice!

cheers: david

ps: thanx for adding the tagline to your masthead, 'we are all danes now'.

This is a joke, right?

Submitted by Urban Terrorist on Sat, 2006-02-18 19:54.

 

I hope it's a joke. If it isn't Chresten Anderson had better do some research.

Microsoft has been convicted of being a predatory monopoly on two continents.

Microsoft has never successfully fought a lawsuit brought against them for monopolistic practises.

Microsoft always insists that settlements be under "Seal", meaning that the general public, who Chresten Anderson seems to think are being hurt by the EU actions never get to evaluate the outcome of the court case, and therefore NEVER know the real story.

The public's ability to evaluate the outcome of a court case is important. As it stands we have only Microsoft's assertion that justice was served. The other party in the court case is not allowed to comment. Considering the shear number of court cases that Microsoft has been involved in, you have to wonder.

Of course Microsoft could give us the data that we need to determine if they really are a poor little rich company by unsealing the sealed settlements. And yes, the other party would have to agree, and I would be quite happy to approach them on Microsoft's behalf in this matter - since I was not involved in any cases involving Microsoft from either side the unsealing will not directly effect any of my interests.

In fact I will be contacting the other parties next week to see if they would be open to having the cases unsealed, and if so I will report it here.

    Consolodated Anti-Trust List
  • Be
  • Burst
  • Netscape
  • Sun
    Other Cases
  • American Video Graphics
  • AOL Time Warner
  • Apple
  • Arendi Holdings
  • AT&T
  • Avary
  • Borland
  • Brazil Board of Administrative Technology
  • Bristol Technology
  • Eleaders
  • California Cities
  • Daum Communications
  • Department of Justice (US)
  • Eolas
  • E-Pass
  • European Commission
  • Federal Trade Commission (US)
  • Gold Touch
  • IBM
  • Intertrust
  • Japan Fair Trade Commission
  • Lindows
  • Minnesota, Government of
  • New York, Government of
  • Novell
  • Priceline
  • Realnetworks
  • Seattle Computer Products
  • SCO
  • Sendo
  • South Korea Free Trade Commission
  • Stac Electronics
  • SUN
  • Syn-X
  • Taiwan,Government of
  • Ticketmaster
  • Timeline
  • Typeright
  • TV Interactive Data
  • West Virginia, Government of
  • Word Perfect

gordonz

Submitted by Gordonz on Sat, 2006-02-18 18:53.

 Microsoft controls the desktop market. Not the server market, so there are plenty of ways to run a non-Microsoft server, that enforces all your business rules and processes, and just be using Microsoft as the frone end, or client.

As far as Microsoft "controlling the way software is written", how do you figure that?

It's .NET development system works on top of a virtual machine, EXACTLY the same way Java does. And Microsoft's system wouldn't be any advantage if you chose a non-Microsoft server, which is where all your business apllications are written anyway.

The most ridiculous thing said is that Microsoft's patents "stipulate how computers, applications etc. communicate."

Applications communicate using whatever API - Application Programming Interface - they choose, and all proprietary middleware communications are all based on RPC, Remote Procedure Calls, which is a completely open standard and was her along time before Microsoft was.

The same thing goes for computers communicating. That is called networking and is based on a protocol called TCP/IP.

TCP/IP is the communication protocol that the Internet was built on, and is not in any way proprietary. This was also around a long time before Microsoft was.

So your arguments about "The problem with computer" would benefit if you knew what the fuck you were talking about.

Also, your so-called Visual Basic.net app is Visual Basic, which has been around since 1992. being re-worked for the .NET platform, of which the main target language is C#, not Visual Basic.

Please, do some reading.

 

The problem with computer

Submitted by A.N. on Sat, 2006-02-18 17:22.

The problem with computer software is that there isn't really any good choice when you run a business. Microsoft controls 94% of the operating system market, and thus controls the way software is written and executed (mostly with Microsoft's Visual Basic.net app).

Also, Microsoft enforces most of the patents for protocols that stipulate how computers, applications etc. communicate. That's a bad thing, because competitors are forced to use Microsoft's way of communicating, even if this way is flawed.

I wouldn't shed any tears

Submitted by Ethnocentrist on Sat, 2006-02-18 16:29.

I wouldn't shed any tears for Microsoft or that leftist, globalist, anti-American, job outsourcer, J1 visa advocate Gates.  I fully understand the totalitarian tactics of the EU, though Microsoft is not the poor victim we should look to champion.  

I'm amazed at how backwards this is

Submitted by happycorpse on Mon, 2006-02-20 05:03.

Microsoft is the bully here, EU is the police.

Tell me that police are totalitarian just for enforcing the law?

Sorry I want to be protected from "bullies", whether they are a guy with a gun or a huge corporation that is charging way too much for way too little.

Microsoft has held down (and held back) the industry for nearly a decade, and you and I are paying for it, with money, with our time (to reinstall the #$#$ os every 6 months because it ROTS), and with the lack of progress that Microsoft enforces.

The EU would do good however

Submitted by markpetens on Sat, 2006-02-18 16:55.

The EU would do good however to remove monopolies instead. Microsoft is only a monopolist in sofar it has patents and some better lobbying access. However, if people and businesses want to buy 'inferior' microsoft products they should do so, no problem there. Removing the anti-trust laws imho would be far better, for businesses large and small.

Useless code

Submitted by Skender on Sat, 2006-02-18 15:41.

Europe did not ask for the source code, it asked for proper documentation that other programmers could use to make their programs cooperate with Windows without having to reverse engineer the Windows protocols (Since the adoption of the EUCD, nobody really knows if reverse engineering is still legal). At first, Microsoft provided some worthless documents and later they just threw some code on the table. Nobody asked for code. To be sure Microsoft can't sue you because of a copyright infringement, you'll have to employ a programmer to read the code and write the documentation and an other programmer to implement the protocol described in that documentation. The only difference with reverse engineering is that the first programmer would be reading C in stead of Assembler.

I don't agree

Submitted by A.N. on Sat, 2006-02-18 15:15.

I know that the EU is a champion in bullying everything American, but I think the anti-Microsoft stance is not necessarily bad.

In my opinion, Microsoft uses the same tactics the EU uses to bully smaller nations. Microsoft uses these tactics to gain a 100% influence in the software market.

A perfect example is the LDAP-system that is used worldwide to manage computerized networks and servers. Microsoft adopted the LDAP-standard from its competitors, and then modified and patented it in such way that competitors couldn't make their systems compatible anymore without using a Microsoft-brand solution. Microsoft called their version of the LDAP-system "Active Directory".

You should look up "embrace, extend, extinguish" up on Google to find the tactics that Microsoft uses.

By the way, Microsoft software isn't all that good, at least security-wise.

The EU is better to worry

Submitted by markpetens on Sat, 2006-02-18 15:11.

The EU is better to worry about the monopoly grant of 1400+ patents to Microsoft in Europe alone. I think consumers in Europe will be better of if the EU would just stop its case against Microsoft and would abolish the European Patent Office instead!