[bj-kaiser]

Quote

The Register has obtained information out of Europe that Microsoft will open up all of its APIs and protocols around the companies' major products such as the Windows operating system and SQL Server. In addition, Microsoft will vow to be more open about its standards body work and more willing to let users move their data from Microsoft-based products to rival code.

http://www.theregist...osoft_api_open/
http://www.theregist...soft_goes_open/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/21/mi...t_goes_api_mad/

Is the world ending already?

[jaclaz]

Yep, it's a voluntary move, of course :
http://enarpri.org/A...?article_id=317
2007

Quote

On 24 March, after five years of investigation, the Commission revealed its decision. Microsoft was condemned for abusing its dominant position under Article 82 of the EC Treaty, on the basis of restricting interoperability between PCs running the Windows operating system and non-Microsoft workgroup servers, and by tying its WMP a product where it faced competition with its PC operating system. A fine of €497 million has been imposed on Microsoft. Yet far more important (after all, the fine amounts only to six days of Microsoft’s sales) are the remedies ordered by the Commission. These are:
A disclosure order. With regard to interoperability, a disclosure order has been imposed. Microsoft is required to disclose, within 120 days, complete and accurate interface documentation, which would allow non-Microsoft workgroup servers to achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers.
‘No WMP’ order. Within 90 days, Microsoft is required to offer PC manufacturers a version of its operating system without WMP. A media player may still be included with the operating system but the choice of media player will be left to the manufacturer and the consumer and not to Microsoft. The company retains the right to offer a version of Windows with the WMP.

The decision was confirmed in September 2007:
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction...;guiLanguage=en
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction...;guiLanguage=en

See this also:
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/63623,eu-for...atent-dogs.aspx

jaclaz

[cluberti]

The problem I have with this, is that it's forcing a company to open it's secrets to the world without compensation. I know people feel different ways about "secret" APIs, but this is a slippery slope - forcing a closed-source company to open it's API's and source seems dangerous to me (even for the EU).

[jaclaz]

Well, it's not like the EU commission took Microsoft name out of a hat and forced the Company to do something just because they fancied it.

Anti-trust provisions are Laws, and they should be respected.

I am fiercely against speed limits on highways, I like the way the Germans manage it, but nonetheless, should I get a ticket for speeding I would pay the fine.

I suspect, and mind you this is my personal opinion, that the fact that Microsoft and it's lawyers used every trick of the trade, and even one more to obstacle (lawfully, of course) or delay the investigations did not help much MS position, remember that the original EU decision dated back to 2004! But the decisions are very well documented and supported, maybe the words of Mario Monti:

Quote

As Commissioner Mario Monti said when commenting on the decision, “Dominant companies have a special responsibility to ensure that the way they do business doesn’t prevent competition on the merits and does not harm consumers and innovation”.

show exactly the main aspect where EU antitrust laws differ from US ones.

And we are not talking of code (open or closed) but rather about protocols, to use the words of the Commission the "the interoperability information":

Quote

Why is the interoperability information so important?

As recently confirmed by the Court of First Instance in its Microsoft judgment (see CJE/07/63 and MEMO/07/359) the interoperability information, i.e. the interface information of how to “communicate” with Microsoft’s PC and server operating systems that Microsoft refused to disclose to its competitors, is vital for them to viably compete in the market for work group server operating systems and to be able to bring innovative products to that market.

jaclaz

[MHz]

cluberti, on Feb 23 2008, 10:19 AM, said:

...open it's secrets to the world without compensation.

Compensation? For what? for being able to interact with other PCs and vice versa no matter the OS. My belief is Microsoft will recreate themselves to be more transparent else they will perish (but that is just my opinion as I see open source will continue to rise in end users confidence).

[bj-kaiser]

cluberti, on Feb 23 2008, 01:19 AM, said:

The problem I have with this, is that it's forcing a company to open it's secrets to the world without compensation. I know people feel different ways about "secret" APIs, but this is a slippery slope - forcing a closed-source company to open it's API's and source seems dangerous to me (even for the EU).

What secrets?
Look at ADS, its an implementation of LDAP, where the Windows file sharing is an implementation of CIFS/SMB. Neither of those protocols originated from Microsoft. They just "enhanced" them until other people (look at SAMBA) can only be compatible with it by re-engineering.

And now someone took the big stick and hit them on their fingers to make them play fair.

Which enables other participiants in the market to be compatible with Windows servers and clients.
Oh and its not for free. If you had read the articles, you'd have seen that any commercial implementation needs to pay a bit of its revenue to MS.

http://www.itnews.com.au/News/63623,eu-for...atent-dogs.aspx

Quote

... In addition to the royalty-free licence for open source developers, Microsoft also reduced the fees it charges commercial vendors of both closed and open source software. The developer will cut its patent licensing fees for commercial vendors from 5.95 per cent to 0.4 per cent of software revenues.

Fees for Microsoft's non-public interoperability information will be reduced to a one-time payment of €10,000. Microsoft had originally demanded 2.98 per cent of revenues. ...

So, now Microsoft will get a bit more competition, and they still get money out of that, unless the competition thinks MS patents aren't wort anything.

As customer you can choose what you like. If you use a 100% MS environment, you got one company to blame. Now if you choose some Linux distribution for the servers for example, worst case your Linux vendor and Microsoft keep blaming eachother if something acts up. But it will still be competition for MS and may have an influence on their price tags. Which should be good for customers.

BTW: Here is the link to the protocol specs.
http://msdn2.microso...y/cc203350.aspx

This post has been edited by bj-kaiser: 24 February 2008 - 04:03 AM

[jaclaz]

As expected:
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction...;guiLanguage=en

Quote

Antitrust: Commission imposes € 899 million penalty on Microsoft for non-compliance with March 2004 Decision
The European Commission has imposed a penalty payment of € 899 million on Microsoft for non-compliance with its obligations under the Commission’s March 2004 Decision (see IP/04/382) prior to 22 October 2007. Today’s Decision, adopted under Article 24(2) of Regulation 1/2003, finds that, prior to 22 October 2007, Microsoft had charged unreasonable prices for access to interface documentation for work group servers. The 2004 Decision, which was upheld by the Court of First Instance in September 2007 (see CJE/07/63 and MEMO/07/359), found that Microsoft had abused its dominant position under Article 82 of the EC Treaty, and required Microsoft to disclose interface documentation which would allow non-Microsoft work group servers to achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers at a reasonable price.

“Microsoft was the first company in fifty years of EU competition policy that the Commission has had to fine for failure to comply with an antitrust decision", said European Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes. "I hope that today's Decision closes a dark chapter in Microsoft's record of non-compliance with the Commission’s March 2004 Decision and that the principles confirmed by the Court of First Instance ruling of September 2007 will govern Microsoft's future conduct".

jaclaz