Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Government Politics

Microsoft Gives In To the EU 161

Posted by kdawson from the playing-nice dept.
An anonymous reader writes with word that Redmond Developer News is reporting that Microsoft has given in to EU threats of further fines. The company has opened up a whole host of protocols, including the Exchange protocol, under a license, the terms of which are not known. No other news outlet has picked up this story so far.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Gives In To the EU More

Microsoft Gives In To the EU

Comments Filter:

  • Don't be fooled (Score:5, Funny)

    by EvilGoodGuy ( 811015 ) on Wednesday March 21, 2007 @01:48AM (#18425591)
    Microsoft isn't bowing down for nothing, this is all just the next step in their plan to buy the EU. Just watch, you heard it here first!

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by alexandreracine ( 859693 )
      Actually, Bill is bowing down to dodge the chair of ... someone...
      • Nah, he's kneeling so Ballmer can leap off his back and spear the EU rep, freeing Bill to throw his at the EU's face.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Are they starting by buying Poland?

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by fbjon ( 692006 )
        No, they forgot.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Evilest Doer ( 969227 )

        Are they starting by buying Poland?
        Nah, first they'll buy the Sudetenland after spending months arguing that the Sudetenland has always been a part of Microsoft.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dotoole ( 881696 )
      Makes sense. Judging from the lack of punishment when they were found guilty in the states, their plan the buy the USA has already succeeded.

  • Wont satisfy Critics? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sr180 ( 700526 ) on Wednesday March 21, 2007 @02:01AM (#18425641) Journal
    Their moves wont satisfy critics, because they will do everything in their power to stop Open Source from using these protocols.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by LingNoi ( 1066278 )

      Of course, the licenses are not free. And, to a large extent, Microsoft is bowing to the European Commission, which decreed the company must make the interfaces public so rivals can compete on what they claim will be a more level playing field.

      Competitor, "I'd like a copy of your API specs please!" :D
      Microsoft, "Sure that'll be $10 Million"
      Competitor, "Here you go!"
      Microsoft, "uhhh sorry I meant $20 Million.."
      Competitor, :(

    • Re:Wont satisfy Critics? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Tim C ( 15259 ) on Wednesday March 21, 2007 @03:36AM (#18426029)
      In which case they'll almost certainly still be in violation of the terms of the court ruling. The intention was to open up the protocols and APIs for everyone, not just for those few companies with deep pockets and clever lawyers.
      • So they tie everything up in court again for another ten years while the EU decides what to do with them. In the meantime, their protocols remain effectively proprietary.

        You can't win with Microsoft. They're incorrigible.
        • Well, we can siphon off money through punitive damages. Even if litigation takes years, a couple hundred megabucks are always welcome.

          Also, there's still the tiny problem of pissing off some of the world's leading industry nations, which might be counterproductive if you intend to sell them your products at the same time. If the EU decides that OpenXML won't be accepted for document exchange with/within governmental organizations Microsoft Office would lose in value.

          Maybe the German software for electro

      • In which case they'll almost certainly still be in violation of the terms of the court ruling.


        Welcome to the game.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Random BedHead Ed ( 602081 )
      Yes, I read in TFA that it won't satisfy critics. Rob Enderle of the Enderle Group was quoted as saying so, and he sounds authoritative and trustworthy enough. I wonder if he would recommend I purchase any Microsoft products in the light of this protocol documentation release. He might be a good, unbiased person to ask about that.

  • Not Free (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 21, 2007 @02:01AM (#18425645)
    FTA:
    Of course, the licenses are not free. And, to a large extent, Microsoft is bowing to the European Commission, which decreed the company must make the interfaces public so rivals can compete on what they claim will be a more level playing field.

    It appears that this wont make its way into the Open Source community; however, it does open up the market to competition. More competition is better than zero competition.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Technician ( 215283 )
      It appears that this wont make its way into the Open Source community; however, it does open up the market to competition. More competition is better than zero competition.

      Not a problem.. As more places demand Open Document Format and other NON-Microsoft ISO certified formats, MS will have to adopt open standards instead or be left out.
      • MS will have to adopt open standards instead or be left out.

        embrace, extend, extinguish.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Technician ( 215283 )
          embrace, extend, extinguish.

          ISO Certification failure = Product rejection. Embrace, extend, extinguish doens't work when certification acceptance is put in contracts by customers, States and Countries.

          ODF Certification is done.. http://www.gcn.com/blogs/tech/40647.html [gcn.com]
          Adoby PDF certification application.. http://www.gcn.com/online/vol1_no1/43015-1.html [gcn.com]

          However, you are correct they are trying to embrace, extend, extinguish.
          MS application.. http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3 618176 [internetnews.com]

          • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

            by JackMeyhoff ( 1070484 )
            Uhh ISO now fast tracks Microsoft submissions, havnt you heard? One good thing that MSFT is now pushing their standards, that forces Adobe to follow suit with their submissions. The great thing about standards is there is so many to choose from now :)

            • Re:Not Free (Score:5, Interesting)

              by Technician ( 215283 ) on Wednesday March 21, 2007 @04:56AM (#18426265)
              Uhh ISO now fast tracks Microsoft submissions, havnt you heard? One good thing that MSFT is now pushing their standards, that forces Adobe to follow suit with their submissions. The great thing about standards is there is so many to choose from now :)


              ISO Certification fast track or not, the Customers will demand formats that exchange nicely. MS is working hard to prevent it as seen in the article..

              "Redmonk Analyst Stephen O'Grady said Microsoft could not -- for any number of reasons, most of them political -- support ODF earlier on in the process.

              "ODF support would have to be compelled by external parties, and large ones at that," O'Grady said. "I'm sure many within Microsoft hoped that ODF would indeed fade away, but I doubt they expected that, and once it trod down the path towards ISO certification, this move was probably a given." "

              It is going to be a fierce battle for a while as MS pushes for their own in house solution and hope the other format will die out because their format is extended.

              "The move is a big about-face for Microsoft, which has said it would not natively support ODF, openly dismissing the standard as too "limited" to meet the demands of the market."

              MS is trying to define the market again instead of leting the market define the market.
              If it is too limited to meet the demands of the market, why is the market demanding it? The market is demanding it because the MS format is too limited. The limitation is in it's inability to be accessed by other systems.

              Good luck the the new browser war!
    • You can bet your bottom that they are not going all the way to make the EU happy. They've give a bit, with a bunch of clauses and limitations, but they won't give everything asked for. Then they'll haggle a bit more and try to reach some compromise.

      I expect though that the EU are wiser than MS is hoping for.

  • I am sure that this term will be in the license (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jonwil ( 467024 ) on Wednesday March 21, 2007 @02:02AM (#18425657)
    "The specifications covered by this license cannot be used in programs released under the GPL" (or rather, license terms that are intended to have the same effect without mentioning the GPL by name)

    • Re:I am sure that this term will be in the license (Score:5, Interesting)

      by slashjunkie ( 800216 ) on Wednesday March 21, 2007 @02:22AM (#18425753)
      If such a term was in the licence, it would open up a legal can of worms for projects such as Samba, Scalix etc, that are already doing quite a good job of reverse engineering Microsoft's closed protocols.

      What if some of these specifications were leaked into the public domain by a company that bought a licence - how could you then prove or disprove whether Samba had reverse engineered protocols under their own steam, or seen some of the leaked specifications, mysteriously fast tracking certain features they'd been slaving over?

      It could be SCO vs Linux all over again.
      • "It'll be 9/11 times a hundred"
        "Why, that's..."
        "Yes... 91,100"
         

      • Re:I am sure that this term will be in the license (Score:4, Informative)

        by mrchaotica ( 681592 ) * on Wednesday March 21, 2007 @06:05AM (#18426543)

        leaked into the public domain

        You can't "leak" something to the Public Domain; only the copyright holder can release it (by explicitly stating so). Even if a third party publishes it, it's still copyrighted.

        • You can leak an algorithm (or protocol) into public domain. Just rewrite it and put into public domain.

          You can't leak the original document.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ADRA ( 37398 )
        1. Even if Microsoft 'claims' that their API's are proprietary, Isn't there still legal ambiguity as to if API's can be considered copyrighted at all?

        2. There are 'proper procedures' that have been followed for decades that involve developers describing how they reverse engineer. As long as the developer claims that they didn't use the specs, I believe its Microsoft's onus that the developer did use the specs. The only effective way to prove the claim is if the developers 'spontaneously' created a compatibl
    • What about BSD, MIT or zlib/png license? What if I release it public domain, then they can't do anything about it can they?

      • Re:I am sure that this term will be in the license (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Crayon Kid ( 700279 ) on Wednesday March 21, 2007 @05:38AM (#18426427)
        Not much, according to the copyright law. As long as a developer gets his hands on the specs and develops software that implements them from scratch, there's nothing they can do. Licensing only covers specific, already-written, code. Reverse engineering is limited in the USA by the DMCA, but there's no such thing in the EU. Providing the same functionality is limited in the USA by software patents, but again, there's no such thing in the EU (even though there's a lot of push for them). So all you can do is tie the people involved with NDA's and liability claims, but once someone gets around that, there's nothing stopping them from implementing the specs. Again, this only works in EU.

        Of course, I'd venture that Microsoft already thought as much. If they're opening up their specs it may mean that (a) they're desperate to sell to the EU no matter what the possible consequences; (b) they're going to take whatever measures to stop the specs finding their way to free software. NDA's, liability and exorbitant licensing costs are pretty good methods, albeit not infallible. Another trick would be to offer the specs hopelessly obfuscated, but that won't work if they charge an arm and a leg for it -- those who pay want to know what they payed for.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Lonewolf666 ( 259450 )

          Of course, I'd venture that Microsoft already thought as much. If they're opening up their specs it may mean that (a) they're desperate to sell to the EU no matter what the possible consequences; (b) they're going to take whatever measures to stop the specs finding their way to free software. NDA's, liability and exorbitant licensing costs are pretty good methods, albeit not infallible. Another trick would be to offer the specs hopelessly obfuscated, but that won't work if they charge an arm and a leg for i

        • MS has tried all of those options (low-quality specs, outrageous licensing terms) and the EU repeatedly said no to those attempts. And while I am pretty sure that MS would happily risk another hefty fine for its delays on delivering the specs as requested by the EU if it could buy them time to come up with some smart solution for this "problem" (i.e. satisfying the EU and keeping the specs secret) there does not seem to be many avenues left to try.

          So - being the optimistic I am - I definitely look forward t
        • Well reverse engineering is still allowed in the US. but as long as it can't be linked to technology used to protect copyrights. So I could reverse engineer a protocol used to manage Windows boxes and publish my results, but I cannot publish the reverse engineering of the genuine advantage algorithms (no matter how trivial it might be).

          The problem with the US DMCA is that it's vague enough that almost anything can fall under its protective umbrella, but theoretically reverse engineering is supposed to be al

  • The trouble is this.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by zappepcs ( 820751 ) on Wednesday March 21, 2007 @02:08AM (#18425685) Journal
    MS is not willing to go the whole way. They give lip service to many things, but their business model is about SELLING software. The whole F/OSS environment is killing them, and those folks that want open standards are considered terrorists in Redmond. MS cannot be open or convenient anymore than a car can be an airplane.

    MS has to fight tooth and nail against all common sense or change their business model completely. Guess which will happen as long as they are able to buy congressmen?
    • Sure looks like they are getting killed to me......

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by rm69990 ( 885744 )
        This is Slashdot. Fanboyist rhetoric beats logic. You should know this already! :-)
      • I thought about this for a bit, and while you might be right you are also missing an important part. Everytime that MS responds to F/OSS activities it hurts them. Yes, I know that is what a business needs to do, but here is the thing. MS has to pay for any change of direction or what not while the F/OSS community doesn't have that resource drain. MS has not historically invented anything spectacular. Yes, I know there are those that will argue, but they have 'embraced and extinguished' as much as purchased

    • They seem to have trouble (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rolfwind ( 528248 ) on Wednesday March 21, 2007 @03:22AM (#18425985)
      buying votes in Europe. I'm not saying they haven't, but they don't have the system locked up like they do have here.

      And America is losing power to influence the world. Most of this is because on the horizon is the vision that they won't be THE dominant player anymore that can strongarm anybody they please, like they were for most of the 20th Century, because of a variety of factors (EU gaining power, China, US own economy and debt).

      Microsoft's paid-for Congressman will be doing less good (for them) in the rest of the world as time moves on.

      • WTO (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Savage-Rabbit ( 308260 )

        And America is losing power to influence the world. Most of this is because on the horizon is the vision that they won't be THE dominant player anymore that can strongarm anybody they please, like they were for most of the 20th Century, because of a variety of factors (EU gaining power, China, US own economy and debt).

        <rant>
        Who got the ball rollling on what eventually became the WTO? Wasn't it the USA with the original ITO proposal? Now the USA is finding out that it's not just others who have to play by WTO rules they also have to do so. In a sense the US Govt. shot it self in the foot when it comes to it's freedom to establish mechanisms for strong arming others over trade issues [wikipedia.org]. Not that the EU is any better in this regard, it isn't. The USA likes to keep it's options open on doing things like the Byrd Amendme

      • The expenditure in most countries for campaign contributions is capped and normaly corporations can't contribute to political parties.

        In the UK for example, all the major parties are normally working in red numbers and the political campaigns cost a fraction of the equivalent in the US.

  • Announcement (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 21, 2007 @02:11AM (#18425697)
    I would like to announce that I, Anonymous Coward, have also given in to threats from the Government and will be complying with local laws, subject to certain conditions that I don't yet choose to reveal. This is my latest claim to have complied with the laws that supposedly bind me. The many many previous times I've made similar claims, it has been nothing more than wordplay with no basis in reality but please don't allow that to distract you from treating this as Headline News. Just because I'm a serial liar doesn't mean I shouldn't be given the same respect and trust as everyone else. Thanks.

  • Fucking Rob Enderle, he's like Herpes (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    There he is again! I just don't know why these journalists keep on asking his opinion!!

    God, I can't stand him. "Principal analyst for market researcher Enderle Group" - yes, principal and only "analyst" for a one-person "group", consisting of him.

    Any article that quotes him, is suspect. Any journalist that contacts him for an "analysis" - is at best clueless, and at worst incompetent to write on technological matters.

    Fucking Rob Enderle! When will the world be rid of this know-nothing stooge? He's like Herp

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by inode_buddha ( 576844 )
      "God, I can't stand him. "Principal analyst for market researcher Enderle Group" - yes, principal and only "analyst" for a one-person "group", consisting of him."

      You forgot his hamster.

  • Binary protocol translation modules (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mathinker ( 909784 ) on Wednesday March 21, 2007 @02:14AM (#18425711) Journal
    What is the state of the parallel open protocols? If their functionality is well-developed, an altruist with deep enough pockets might be able to release binary-only plugin modules which translate between protocols. Or perhaps a binary-only proxy server application which does that.

    Unfortunately, I would guess that Microsoft's license tries to deal with this problem. Probably in a way analogous to Numerical Recipes' clause:

    (ii) our software is bound into the programs in such a manner that it cannot be accessed as individual routines and cannot practicably be unbound and used in other programs. Specifically, under this license, your program user must not be able to use our programs as part of a program library or ``mix-and-match'' workbench.

    Too bad the EU couldn't force them to go totally open.

    • Well it isn't surprising (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Wednesday March 21, 2007 @03:50AM (#18426063)
      If the EU demanded a total, open, no cost solution, MS probably wouldn't give in. Heck they might even rather pull out of the European market entirely than do that.

      Remember: Anti-monopoly rulings don't necessarily mean that competitors get everything they want for free, it just means that you have to make it reasonable for your competitors to work with what you have. For example when phone companies had to let CLECs in, they don't have to give them the space for free. They can, and do, charge them for all the rack space they use. However it has to be a reasonable and non-discriminatory fee meaning they can't say "Uhh ok it's $100,000 per 1RU and you can only buy one."

      I'm sure the MS deal will be similar. You'll be able to license their specs for whatever is covered under the agreement, and the fees will be fixed and reasonable, but it will cost money and there may be conditions on it. That's probably fine for the EU. Their concern isn't making OSS fans happy, their concern is that companies be able to produce products that compete with Microsoft's stuff.

      • Re:Well it isn't surprising (Score:4, Interesting)

        by GreyPoopon ( 411036 ) <[gpoopon] [at] [gmail.com]> on Wednesday March 21, 2007 @04:54AM (#18426249)

        You'll be able to license their specs for whatever is covered under the agreement, and the fees will be fixed and reasonable, but it will cost money and there may be conditions on it.

        Costing money is fine as long as the fees are reasonable. But the conditions will be far more important. If there's a condition that reads like "this license is not valid if the protocol is used in conjunction with Open Source Software", then it will be completely unacceptable. It's quite nearly the same as saying "any company can license our software except {list of competitors}". For the pure OSS supporters, I know that having to pay license fees will not be acceptable, but it's not reasonable to expect a company to give everything away. The goal of this is to make sure that a large company does not abuse its dominant market position in such as way as to prevent competitors from obtaining a share of that market. Reasonable license fees with fairness to all potential competitors are an acceptable way of reaching that goal.
        • There's plenty of stuff that have various levels of non-disclosure as a condition of the license. You have to remember that not everyone cares about the openness of source or not. Requiring a closed module doesn't stop competition in any way, it just means that competition can't open up that particular code. I know everyone here is concerned about OSS competition but that really isn't what the EU is worried about. Commercial, closed, competition would be just fine.

          Also remember that the reasonable fees coul

      • If the EU demanded a total, open, no cost solution, MS probably wouldn't give in. Heck they might even rather pull out of the European market entirely than do that

        And that would be a bad thing because.... ?

        Sorry, let me rephrase that: That would be a bad thing for the EU because...?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 )

        If the EU demanded a total, open, no cost solution, MS probably wouldn't give in. Heck they might even rather pull out of the European market entirely than do that.

        I've heard people say this sort of thing before. Let me tell you what would happen if MS decided to "pull out" of the EU. Realistically, the board of directors at MS would have an emergency meeting and fire the CEO then appoint someone new who would apologize for the old CEO and claim he had lost his mind or something. Then, MS would probably pressure the US to deport the now criminal CEO to the EU for prosecution and/or institutionalization. Then business would go back to normal except with a lot more an

  • Let's see what sort of exclusionary license Microsoft will impose before crowing that they have capitulated.

  • The article is wrong! (Score:5, Informative)

    by jkrise ( 535370 ) on Wednesday March 21, 2007 @02:46AM (#18425863) Journal
    From TFA: Microsoft is making key communications protocols available for license , so that third parties, including competitors, can link into the company's newest enterprise products...

    The key communications protocols are the ones where Microsoft has a monopoly position... namely,

    The protocols by which a Windows 95 / 98 / NT / 2000 PC joins and authenticates with the Domain Controller.
    NTFS, Active Drirectory, SMB etc. would be some other protocls of interest.

    To my knowledge, Exchange Server, Share Point etc. are not areas of monopoly for Microsoft.

    The article is plain WRONG. It might be some more PR spin by MS as usual, though. You want us to open up our protocols? Okay... here's how Dynamics CRM talks to SharePoint Portal! One thinks the EU inspectors will not be susceptible to such tricks.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Tim C ( 15259 )
      The key communications protocols are the ones where Microsoft has a monopoly position...

      To my knowledge, Exchange Server, Share Point etc. are not areas of monopoly for Microsoft.

      From TFA:

      The list of available protocols, XML schemas and application programming interfaces (APIs) include transport protocols for communications between Office Outlook 2007 and Exchange Server 2007. (Emphasis added)

      Seriously, it was in the very next paragraph to the one you quoted. Of all the products produced by MS, the only one

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jkrise ( 535370 )
        Of all the products produced by MS, the only ones I care about being replaced with serious, 100% interoperable alternatives (any alternatives, not just open ones) are Exchange and Outlook. I'm effectively forced to use Outlook at work because of the calendaring, and I hate almost every second I have to use that sorry excuse for an email client...

        What you care about isn't important (your low /. id doesn't count ;-) What matters is what areas the EU considers MS to be a monopoly in; and the protocols necessa

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jabuzz ( 182671 )
        Well Evolution does a good job of interacting with an Exchange server on Linux as does Entourage on a Mac. Use them every working day. For replacing the server there is always PostPath which is five times faster than Exchange on the same hardware. Not free but you did claim that this was not important.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Bert64 ( 520050 )
          Both of these clients access exchange by hooking on top of the web interface... Even microsoft's own entourage accesses exchange this way, they don't use the same protocol that outlook does, and don't work if the web interface is turned off.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by raddan ( 519638 )
      Exchange Server is the ONLY reason why our parent corporation stuck with Microsoft through the NT/Active Directory transition. AD is required to run an Exchange Server. It was a lot easier to stick with Exchange than to switch to a competing product (like Notes or GroupWise). I can't even begin to imagine how difficult moving all of those mail stores would be. Now, if there were another implementation of the Exchange protocols, we probably would have seriously considered it.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 )

      To my knowledge, Exchange Server, Share Point etc. are not areas of monopoly for Microsoft.

      I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of monopoly abuse. The law does not forbid MS from having a monopoly, it forbids them from tying monopolized products to products in other markets. In this case MS does not have a monopoly on some protocol. They have a monopoly on desktop operating systems. Any protocols that secretly communicate between MS's desktop operating system and some other product offering in a different market (Windows server) mean that people in the market for a server OS

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by drsmithy ( 35869 )

        A lot of companies bought a Windows based exchange server instead of a Linux based server because exchange was built into their Windows desktops and they needed something to talk to them and the Linux server could not do so because the protocol was being kept secret.

        No aspect of Exchange is "built into" anyone's "Windows desktops".

        • No aspect of Exchange is "built into" anyone's "Windows desktops".

          Outlook Express, now renamed "Windows Mail" shipped with every one. In Vista there is now a calendar application as well. Also, there is the MS Office integration, although MS has fought long and hard to make sure no lawsuits that might see MS Office declared a monopoly ever reach a verdict, being careful to settle them all out of court.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by drsmithy ( 35869 )

            Outlook Express, now renamed "Windows Mail" shipped with every one.

            And ? OE is not an Exchange client, it's a generic email client. It talks IMAP, POP and HTTP.

            In Vista there is now a calendar application as well.

            Which uses the iCalendar standard and WebDAV to share calendars.

            Also, there is the MS Office integration, although MS has fought long and hard to make sure no lawsuits that might see MS Office declared a monopoly ever reach a verdict, being careful to settle them all out of court.

            Therefor

  • OMG - I was there! I was there! (Score:5, Funny)

    by cliveholloway ( 132299 ) on Wednesday March 21, 2007 @03:06AM (#18425917) Homepage Journal

    "No other news outlet has picked up this story so far"

    Wow. I feel honored. I can now tell my grandkids when I'm old and crusty that I actually saw a peice of news that was posted first on Slashdot - as opposed to the usual way of things being recycled from Fark, Digg or CNET. Or worse, a Roland Pickadoor submission.

    Is that a tear forming in the corner of my eye? Sniff.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by quarrel ( 194077 )
      Not only is it breaking news here, but the link is to another news site with the coverage...

      --Q
      • Hey - this is Slashdot - don't think for a second there that I actually clicked any links or did any background reading. Or poofread my post for spelling errors.

  • Microsoft Gives In To the EU? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ChameleonDave ( 1041178 ) on Wednesday March 21, 2007 @03:08AM (#18425939) Homepage
    The multinational corporation Microsoft has complied with the law, and this is reported as "Microsoft Gives In To the EU". I wonder whether the headline would have read "Microsoft Gives In To the US" if the laws in question has been American.
    • I'd celebrate if Microsoft were reporthed obeying the law of gravity .

      (Ballmer and his frickin' chairs... THEY NEVER COME DOWN!)
    • If the laws in question had been American the headline would have read something like "Shock reversal by US Justice system as it forces Microsoft to comply with its rulings". Just maybe a little shorter.
    • Actually, Microsoft is still in violation of the law. They simply said that they plan to comply with the law, but that they don't quite know how they're going to do it. And, of course, it's not like Microsoft has ever promised something and not delivered, right?

  • ISR (Score:2)

    by SeaFox ( 739806 )
    In Soviet Russia-- no wait! In former Eastern Bloc nations:

    Microsoft gives in to EU!

    [running from Slashdot crowd with torches and pitchforks]

  • that's not "opening up" (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nanosquid ( 1074949 ) on Wednesday March 21, 2007 @04:02AM (#18426099)
    Licensing protocols to other companies is not "opening up". And given that open source is becoming more and more important inside the EU, this may not satisfy the EU.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Shados ( 741919 )
      This is about Microsoft's anti-competitive behaviors, not about Microsoft not being what we want. By selling access to their protocoles, they allow other companies to enter the market, which is the point in these suits. Not pleasing the open source community.

  • Seen it all before (Score:5, Insightful)

    by valentyn ( 248783 ) on Wednesday March 21, 2007 @04:41AM (#18426191) Homepage
    This is the same spin we've seen before. I've got a news item from last August on paper that says *exactly* the same thing ("Microsoft buigt voor Brussel" - meaning MS gives in). The one-but-latest news came from the EU a couple of weeks ago, saying "You know, these protocols aren't innovative at all, your fee is too high", so now it's MS's turn again: "Hey, we finally open up, here are all our protocols, for a most reasonable fee that we don't exactly know yet".

    The lawsuit *is* about the licensing. It is not about the protocols. Saying "you'll get the protocols but we'll define the licensing and the fees next time" is like saying "I will make you rich, and I'll define rich for you".

  • First I was about to joke .. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Qbertino ( 265505 ) <moiraNO@SPAMmodparlor.com> on Wednesday March 21, 2007 @04:50AM (#18426231)
    First I was about to joke and write something like 'MS gives in to representative body of 400 Million people' but then I noticed that even this can't be taken for granted. I'm glad the EU has enough self-respect to tell MS who's boss when it comes to anti-competitive behaviour.

    Then again MS was delaying the game to draw attention off the fact that they're defending their monopoly much more effectively in another place: Standards, closed, non-compatible Data Formats and Software Patents. The former two are great devices of market control. The EU ought to do something about that. Probalby MS wasn't really interested in lobbying in this as, as giving in here isn't so much a loss for them as it would be if they where required to comply to an amount of standard IT standards. Now *that* would be the appropriate punishment for MS.

    I'll rest when MS has 50% market share or less.

  • American Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys (Score:3, Funny)

    by fantomas ( 94850 ) on Wednesday March 21, 2007 @05:03AM (#18426291)
    Those yanks. They roll over and surrender at the first whiff of fine cheese :-)

    • They roll over and surrender at the first whiff of fine cheese
      I've had American 'cheese' and it ain't pretty. I know lot's of Brits in the USA get people to send over Marmite & suchlike but I'd have a decent pack of cheeses sent over and damn the air-freight costs.
      (continued elsewhere in the damn-you-for-creating-co2-with-your-cheese-obsessi on conference)
    • No, we don't 'roll over and surrender.' Microsoft hardly bowed to the demands of the EU. It sounds like they found another way to, use the British expression, "place another spanner in the works." The so-called opening of the protocols is still not under a free license; Microsoft finds another way to earn more money. Due to a non-free license, our pals at Redmond successfully stymied open source again. Do not be so naive as to think Microsoft is being "a good citizen"
  • If this is true "The Outlook-Exchange Transport Protocol supports personal information management features such as e-mail, calendar, contacts and task functionality in Office Outlook 2007, including shared calendars and scheduling capabilities. The protocol is available for licensing now, although Microsoft will continue to tinker with the specifications until June or so."

    Microsoft will cease to have relevance one year from Now!!!

    Maybe not exactly a year, but if there could be quality OSS products integrate
  • Spare a thought for all those poor hackers out there with an addiction to packet sniffing [wikipedia.org].

    What will they find to feed their addiction?

  • ...including the Exchange protocol, under a license, the terms of which are not known.

    Does this strike anyone else as a bluff? "Here's the protocol. But there is a license before you can read it. And the license is unknown."

    Technically, it's available. But it's also not at the same time.

    Meow.

  • Fines (Score:2)

    by tsa ( 15680 )
    Does this mean they don't have to pay all those fines [slashdot.org] the EU imposed on them, AND they get money for the licenses? That seems like a win/win situation for MS doesn't it?

  • The company has opened up a whole host of protocols, including the Exchange protocol, under a license, the terms of which are not known.

    This is a bizarre use of the term "opened". How can it be said to be "opened" if it is "under a license, the terms of which are not known"?
  • Unless the protocol definitions are redistributable without fees or royalties this means absolutely nothing.
  • "Microsoft gives IT to the EU"

Slashdot Top Deals

Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"

Close