Home > Microsoft > Microsoft: Sun deal unsigned; Feds look at Longhorn Microsoft: Sun deal unsigned; Feds look at Longhorn Eugenia Loli 2004-07-17 Microsoft 12 Comments As part of Microsoft’s settlement with Sun Microsystems, Sun agreed to take part in a licensing program under which Microsoft gives rivals access to various Windows communications protocols. However, Sun’s check is apparently still in the mail. About The Author Eugenia Loli Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker. Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli 12 Comments 2004-07-17 3:16 am Anonymous That doesn’t really explain much. 2004-07-17 3:25 am Anonymous it’s too bad the courts let them “license” the protocols instead of just making them open. as long as microsoft is using proprietary standards (or modified standards), they can count me out as a customer. 2004-07-17 4:37 am Anonymous Windows interfaces with many things based on published, open standards. Please be more specific. Are you talking about office? 2004-07-17 5:21 am Anonymous Cmon now, office, ntfs, cifs, hotmail, .net, msn messenger, etc, etc. Lol, open standards? Like what? Their bastardized embrace and extend versions of kerberos, ldap, java, html? Please tell me what’s open about microsoft? 2004-07-17 8:15 am Anonymous Sun will report financial results for its fourth quarter of fiscal 2004 on Tuesday. However, its stock has taken a dive in the last few days, which is not a good sign. And Sun not paying the royalties it owes Microsoft is not a good sign either. Microsoft could go for the throat next time they meet in court… 2004-07-17 11:30 am Anonymous Where’s the “Feds look at Longhorn” part of the news item? 2004-07-17 11:44 am Anonymous Microsoft also said in the filing that state and federal regulators are beginning to look at Microsoft’s next-generation Windows operating system, code-named Longhorn, to make sure it fits in with the consent decree, in particular a section of the pact that deals with the accessibility of the software to server software known as middleware. “While Longhorn is not scheduled for release for some time, plaintiffs believe that early attention to these issues will enable plaintiffs and Microsoft to address any potential concerns in a timely manner, before the final structure of the product is locked into place,” Microsoft and regulators said in the joint filing. There are only 7 paragraphs in the entire article and you missed 2. 2004-07-17 2:38 pm Anonymous If the Feds had any interest in keeping the software market competitve they’d be doing a lot more than “looking at longhorn”. It really does make me think they are out on Bill’s ranch counting steer… and having a good ‘ol time whooping it up and laughing at how they crippled the US/world software market. 2004-07-17 3:22 pm Anonymous you forgot smb/cifs, exchange, active directory, windows domain control, wma, directx, com, rpc, the list goes on. in a quote from the horses mouth: “The standard defines a baseline of interoperability and then you add features.” that’s Mark Ryland director of (non) standards at microsoft. basically, you take a publically defined standard, “value-add” it, and make it inoperable with anyone else, then sell your new spec to the person who implimented the open standard to begin with. it’s not that mac, linux, unix, beos, amiga, bsd, etc, don’t play well with windows, look at the interoperability between those systems, they have no problem playing well together, its that windows doesn’t play well with anything but windows. and that will be the way it is until either a) customers say we’re tired of this crap or b) microsoft starts losing customers because people realize they can have a heterogenius network (ie not prone to malicious attacks) that has no problem communicating with itself, that is of course, with the exception of its windows boxes… 2004-07-18 12:22 am Anonymous You are absolutely right. The easiest way to solve this to remove open standards from the public domain and re-license them under the GPL. That way if Microsoft et al change open standards (ie bastardise them like they do now) then they have to publish the changes. Or – simply introduce legislation in the US for software etc that’s public domain – that any changes or additions must remain public domain and be published. This is such an easy thing to do – it’s just that the rich companies like Microsoft, Apple and Sun etc don’t wanna do it. They want to take but not give. This is why Richard Stallman created the GPL – because companies like Microsoft could take open standards in the public domain and mutate them into proprietary money bins. He recognised this 20 odd years ago, why has it taken the US government so long to even acknowldge the problem (let alone take steps to fix it)? mmm? Greed my friends. The world software market is dominated by US companies, and it’s in US companies interests to close the market as much as possible to keep that profit within the US. That’s why the US government will never change it. Personally i’m sick of having to play by US rules. I live in Australia not the US and I don’t see why I have to live by their crap. Dave W Pastern 2004-07-18 1:52 am Anonymous And why would you want the government in your software? If MS wont conform to the open standards then they can find their software left behind in years to come. 2004-07-18 7:12 am Anonymous @Dave W Pastern Note that a ‘whole sale’ GPL application on Australia’s own commercial software industry (e.g. MYOB, Solution6, Midware, Locus, and Quicken) will compromise it’s revenue base. PS; I also live in Australia btw… >You are absolutely right. The easiest way to solve this to >remove open standards from the public domain and re-license >them under the GPL. The proposed GPL standards wouldn’t be true “public domain” per se since GPL is a license in its own right.