OSNews

Free does not mean with no strings attached.

Even if the license was free you'd still be tainted for life if you took a look at the code. MS could sue you at the drop of a hat.

Not necessarily. This is pretty commonplace in the US. Developer A signs the Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) and reads the code. Developer A then writes up a specification from what he understands regarding how the source code works. Developer B then takes those specifications and starts coding an implementation of said project. This is perfectly legal in 95% of the NDA cases unless they write a clause specifying that you can't write a list of the software specifications. I somehow doubt the EU would approve of that though.

Developer A signs the Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) and reads the code. Developer A then writes up a specification from what he understands regarding how the source code works.

The difficulty is finding Developer A. He/she must sign an NDA which could very well bar them from writing code for any opensource project ever again, and on top of that they must perform the tedious task of writing specs from the code. Meanwhile Developer B codes the actual program from the specs and gets all the glory.

> He/she must sign an NDA which could very well bar them
> from writing code for any opensource project ever
> again,

Just for the sake of information, in EU contracts can't last forever.

"The difficulty is finding Developer A. He/she must sign an NDA which could very well bar them from writing code for any opensource project ever again, and on top of that they must perform the tedious task of writing specs from the code. Meanwhile Developer B codes the actual program from the specs and gets all the glory."

Actually this happens all the time. Developer A is not normally an OSS Developer, but rather a standards organization. I do agree in that very few OSS Developers would go with signing an NDA and writing the spec.

Sometimes I read articles like these and I think the EU has gotten a little bit of an ego.

That issue can probably be solved by reading better, more detailed, articles.

However MS looks to be succeeding in their astroturfing campaign. They were told by the EC not to offer source code since that is not the best documentation of the protocols. So what did they do when the documentation they offered was rejected by the compliance manager that they themselves chose? In pure egoless fashion instead of discussing it with the EC they made the Euro 50k source code (with NDA) announcement in the press.

As you may guess the uninformed rants decrying the plundering of MS's valuable IP began immediately even though that was exactly what the EC didn't ask for. Marketing beats logic every time in mass media.

OK. But how to be sure that open protocols are FULLY supported and there is no hidden thing in those used protocols ?

That was the point of requiring the documentation to be provided. If the protocol is accurately described then anyone can write to that specification. If it 's not accurate or the protocol is changed it will be immediately obvious.

If there are hidden elements to the protocol a packet sniffer will reveal them. Once again the protocol documentation is more valuable than the code.

Besides what are you going to do with an estimated million lines of code? Analyzing that will slow you down more than having a spec. to write to.

That's always been the problem with MS's published documentation. It seemed to be obsolete before the ink was dry. At least, by having the code to look at you could see if the docs were correct or not. With many OSS projects, the only documentation you get is the source, so having the source can be very helpfull. Charging people to look at the source is just another stall tactic. I applaud the EU for standing up to MS's childish antics.

That's always been the problem with MS's published documentation. It seemed to be obsolete before the ink was dry.

Again, that is the value of the protocol spec. When the protocol is changed to the point where it breaks other people's implementation and the documentation doesn't reflect the change then the game is exposed.

No one needed to look at MS code to know that their Kerberos implementation wasn't interoperable with standards based implementations. When SAMBA features that worked suddenly stopped working it wasn't code analysis that got them back in the game. They got out the packet sniffer and found the alteration in the spec. (and fixed their code to work with it).

At least, by having the code to look at you could see if the docs were correct or not.

That works well for MS. You're busy analyzing the code instead of writing your own that fits with the code base you [may] have on hand and the style that you are accustomed to. They continue dominating the market which was what this ruling was supposed to remedy.

I don't see the big deal surrounding Microsoft keeping the source code closed. Open protocols are necessary, not open source code.

The EU agrees, they don't want MS to sell the source, that was MS' idea. Now they're trying to redirect the issue to open source so everyone will sympathise with them for the "bad EU trying to force them to give their product away" even though there is no such effort.

Redirection, smoke and mirrors! Don't pay any attention to the man behind the curtain.

I don't see the big deal surrounding Microsoft keeping the source code closed. Open protocols are necessary, not open source code.

The EU is attempting to force Microsoft to make their protocols open standards. Microsoft didn't comply. Microsoft instead offered their source code, which is next to useless. So the EU is now saying "alright, if that's what you want, you can't charge for the code".

Perhaps following the story would work better than just commenting and pretending you know what you're talking about, no?

The EC isn't the one who is confused here.

They didn't want MS to offer code and told them so at the outset. MS is frustrated that the compliance manager has rejected their protocol documentation as useless and is trying to undermine the compliance process by claiming that the best way to help competitors is to offer them a million lines of MS code for 50k Euros.

Certainly MS can offer to license their code and charge any fee they would like. Just not as compliance with the EC's ruling.

I believe the law goes before any aggreement. you can not have a agreemnt that breaks the law. I think al of this is not on who set the terms or who owns what or the eu wanting to take on microsoft .It is symply a case of microsoft breaking the anty trust laws and a judge saying so and the eu checking if microsoft complies .

In addition to my open protocols statement, a simple Google search of several Microsoft-designed (or used) protocols reveals they are documented. SMB, NetBIOS, etc.

Do some more research : from "Implementing CIFS" : ( http://ubiqx.org/cifs/Intro.html )

"The large installed base of Microsoft's Windows products has granted de facto standard status to CIFS. Unfortunately, implementation documentation and detailed protocol specifications are scarce, incomplete, and inconsistent. This is a problem for network administrators, third-party CIFS implementors, and anyone else who wants to know more about the ingredients than is described on the bottom of the box."

Note: Netbios, SMB are part of CIFS.

Edited 2006-01-31 19:24

Google search of several Microsoft-designed (or used) protocols reveals they are documented. SMB

Yes SMB is not Microsoft-designed but Microsoft used. SMB (Server Message Blocks) was IBM designed and they released it as an open protocol. Microsoft took it and incorporated it into their CIFS (Common Internet File System) and intoduced closed undocumented features. Some of these features may have had some real function but according to the SAMBA developers some seem to have been intoduced for the sole purpose of blocking system interoperability.

By the way CIFS is like the Holy Roman Empire, which in the view of many historians was neither Holy, Roman nor an Empire. CIFS is not common, related to the internet nor a file system.

Edit addition for those of you not educated in European history the Holy Roman Empire was medieval Germany sort of :-)

Edited 2006-02-01 00:22

But this is to open up there server protocals right?

They are not a monopoly in that Hell If you listen to most Linux people they have no market share..

I never get this anyone can creat a new protocall and install it on winodws machines so that It will alow them to share information, Y do they just not do that insted of crying because there protocals are not open.

There are many monopolies already in many countries that are supposed to have laws against them.

Microsoft is an American company and that is what is different.

>Simply complying with the demands would get them a lot more friends over here.

And they don't have all that many to start with. There's a much stronger pull to OSS and free software in Europe than in the US. MS should start worrying. Now.

If I had a vote left I'd vote this one up

I agree,

Now you've got one.

So you're saying this woman ( http://europa.eu.int/comm/commission_barroso/kroes/profile.htm ), who holds a Masters of Science in Economics is an anti-business pinko ? Well THAT makes perfect sense !

Previous employment includes : "Member Supervisory Board McDonald’s" Clearly an anti-American huh ?

Edit: this keeps getting better - she's actually been President of Nyenrode Business University. Anti-business indeed!

Edited 2006-01-31 19:48

Previous employment includes : "Member Supervisory Board McDonald’s" Clearly an anti-American huh ?

I never said Anti American I said anti-business.

I never said Anti American I said anti-business.

See my last edit to the previous post. She has been persident of the dutch Nyenrode Business University "Nyenrode was founded by Dutch captains of industry to bridge the divide between education and entrepreneurship" ( http://www.nijenrode.nl/ )

Think of the anti-us quip as a preemptive attack. Those are allowed these days I gather ;-)

Think of the anti-us quip as a preemptive attack. Those are allowed these days I gather ;-)

Bad joke! sorry, i am sensitive to the Anti-American comments. I have gotten myself into too many pointless "Europe is better then everyone else in the world" arguments and how America is evil. Just want to stick to the points and stay away from the ignorant banter.

Edited 2006-01-31 20:03

Perhaps you might care to explain how ensuring that european businesses can compete in european software markets, by offering useful, interoperable software products to european customers without being pre-emptively strangled by an abusive US mega-corporation that has been acting illegally for many years, is anti-business?

Turning a blind eye to MS's ongoing criminal activity is anti-business, not doing something about it.

Is putting drug dealers in jail anti-business? These people generate a lot of revenue from illegal activites too and is it really fair to force them to spend their time in jail, that amounts to robbery!

Even if the license was free you'd still be tainted for life if you took a look at the code. MS could sue you at the drop of a hat.
I agree. I don't think any open source implementer want to look at Microsoft code. I can imagine all sorts of IP problems.

Perhaps you might care to explain how ensuring that european businesses can compete in european software markets, by offering useful, interoperable software products to european customers without being pre-emptively strangled by an abusive US mega-corporation that has been acting illegally for many years, is anti-business?

Acting illegally? Forcing an American company to open up its own standards so that domestic Europeans can compete directly with them? Competition is derived from creating a superior product to what the current market provides not this.

Turning a blind eye to MS's ongoing criminal activity is anti-business, not doing something about it.

ROFLAMO

Is putting drug dealers in jail anti-business? These people generate a lot of revenue from illegal activites too and is it really fair to force them to spend their time in jail, that amounts to robbery!

Whatever, it’s the equivalent of the EU demanding the ingredients of Viagra so they can give the recipe away free to European companies so they can compete with Pfizer. That’s anti business because there are no guarantees your IP rights will be respected in Europe. Almost like doing business with China.

Forcing an American company to open up its own standards so that domestic Europeans can compete directly with them?

I don't know where you got that idea from, but the specifications are not meant for European companies, but companies that do business in Europe.

I guess there is at least one other US American company doing business in Europe, for example Apple, Real, Novell, etc

No, in a monopoly-dominated market, competition is not derived from creating a superior product to what the current market provides. How old are you, 12?


Acting illegally? Forcing an American company to open up its own standards so that domestic Europeans can compete directly with them? Competition is derived from creating a superior product to what the current market provides not this.


Its the EU enforcing sanctions against an organisation who has been found to have violated the law. You have no guarantee your IP rights will be respected anywhere in thw world, including the USA if you are convicted of criminal actions.

And you say 'doing business with China' like its a bad thing - I don't see China's IP policies preventing the western world from doing hundreds of billion dollars worth of business with China every year. Seems like China is pretty pro-business to me.

Whatever, it’s the equivalent of the EU demanding the ingredients of Viagra so they can give the recipe away free to European companies so they can compete with Pfizer. That’s anti business because there are no guarantees your IP rights will be respected in Europe. Almost like doing business with China.

This amount to robbery! They are basically saying “Give us your Intellectual property so we can give it free to everyone”. EU is setting a very bad precedent with these actions of late

Nope, the EU courts threw out IP and software patents, they are not valid in the EU. Part of Microsofts defense was that if they did release the sort court, it would be giving up its own IP.....

Emm.. So what ? It means nothing here anyway...

Next excuse please....

I wonder if the EU are even capable of understanding the documentation that they already received.
The companies they enlisted to help them with these issues probably do, but they have other hidden agendas as well so it is in their best interest to make it a bad day for MS whenever possible, by for example calling the 12000 pages of protocol specifications and documents "useless".

The EU has appointed an expert, professor Neil Barrett, to help them evaluate all information. He was picked based on a shortlist provided by Microsoft. The guys biography : http://www.itwales.com/998622.htm , and the column he writes : http://comment.silicon.com/neilbarrett/

"Neil Barrett studied Mathematics and Computer Science at Nottingham University, graduating in 1983. Just two years later, he gained a PhD and the university's research prize; York University appointed him as the UK's youngest lecturer in 1985. In 1988 he left academe and became a consultant, specialising in UNIX and computer security"

Really this info is readily available, at least make an effort.

Is anyone else just wondering if the whole thing doesn't water down to the EU wanting to stick it to the US at every available opportunity? I keep reading articles about how ESA is competing against NASA, France thinks it can develop something better than Google, etc. etc.

Airbus vs. Boeing I think you are exactly right. The EU has extorted almost 1 billion dollars from Microsoft. This is not a paltry sum. They use the richest American companies to fund their system and boost their failed economies. It would be interesting to know where the money they fined Microsoft went.

"Is anyone else just wondering if the whole thing doesn't water down to the EU wanting to stick it to the US at every available opportunity? I keep reading articles about how ESA is competing against NASA, France thinks it can develop something better than Google, etc. etc.

Airbus vs. Boeing I think you are exactly right. The EU has extorted almost 1 billion dollars from Microsoft. This is not a paltry sum. They use the richest American companies to fund their system and boost their failed economies. It would be interesting to know where the money they fined Microsoft went."

Airbus beats Boeing the last few years, ESA has it's own (meaning: non military) ways of living and reasons of existing, and is almost always cooperating with NASA. Since when is providing good competition (Frances' google, making sure that real competition is possible, and not competition on MS's grounds) anti-US? It's not because the EU doesn't follow the US (anti-software-patent-laws, charging MS for abusing its power over the market) that it is trying to abuse rich US-companies.