Hi,
There's this huge blurb about a so called fine applied to Microsoft.
However, I see no fine, but a better hidden 'pat in the back, again do it not'. Let's see:
a) they have to have a copy of Windows winthout Media Player b) they have to make public the documentation of protocols and document formats b1) however they may charge RAND if they have patents c) if a) and b) are not fulfilled, fine of 497 Million EUR, an amount some say is not significant for Microsoft.
Conclusion: due to RAND the only viable competitor, Free Software, is excluded from competing.
I believe this should be brought to the proper authorities. This is a scandal IMHO.
What can be done? Is anyone working on a rebuttal?
Hugs, Rui
On Wed, 2004-03-24 at 22:40, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
However, I see no fine, but a better hidden 'pat in the back, again do it not'. Let's see:
a) they have to have a copy of Windows winthout Media Player
That would be useful, and would set a good precedent too. I don't think it's necessarily a small thing.
b) they have to make public the documentation of protocols and document formats b1) however they may charge RAND if they have patents
I'm not sure about that. The Register are reporting:
The Commission at the moment has not made it clear to whom this disclosure should be made, whether to named competitors or to the world in general. It does however concede that if "any of this interface information might be protected by intellectual property in the European Economic Area, Microsoft would be entitled to reasonable remuneration." http://theregister.co.uk/content/4/36496.html
Which seems to imply that RAND is not necessarily acceptable. I haven't looked at the judgement myself - don't have the time :( - but there do seem to be some teeth in it.
c) if a) and b) are not fulfilled, fine of 497 Million EUR, an amount some say is not significant for Microsoft.
No, the EU PR is clear that the fine is "in addition", not reliant on MS complying with remedies a & b. MS *has* to do a), b) and also pay the fine.
I believe this should be brought to the proper authorities. This is a scandal IMHO.
Personally, I think it is as strong as we could hope. The precedent of the media player is important, and the documentation might be useful. I think it's also something that they can litigate fairly quickly and will still be relevant when the remedies are affirmed (as they ought to be).
Cheers,
Alex.
On Wed, 2004-03-24 at 23:32 +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
On Wed, 2004-03-24 at 22:40, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
However, I see no fine, but a better hidden 'pat in the back, again do it not'. Let's see:
a) they have to have a copy of Windows winthout Media Player
That would be useful, and would set a good precedent too. I don't think it's necessarily a small thing.
Yes, but what is important is the rest.
b) they have to make public the documentation of protocols and document formats b1) however they may charge RAND if they have patents
I'm not sure about that. The Register are reporting:
Don't read the news. There's a massive effort of misinformation. Read it it from the wolf's mouth:
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?p_action.gettxt=gt&doc=...
Which seems to imply that RAND is not necessarily acceptable. I haven't looked at the judgement myself - don't have the time :( - but there do seem to be some teeth in it.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv To the extent that any of this interface information might be protected by intellectual property in the European Economic Area(6), Microsoft ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ would be entitled to reasonable remuneration. The disclosure order concerns the interface documentation only, and not the Windows source code, as this is not necessary to achieve the development of interoperable products.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This reeks of patents... notice how they make a distinction over copyight by not requiring access to source code.
To the c) if a) and b) are not fulfilled, fine of 497 Million EUR,
an amount
some say is not significant for Microsoft.No, the EU PR is clear that the fine is "in addition", not reliant on MS complying with remedies a & b. MS *has* to do a), b) and also pay the fine.
You're right. I was so shocked with the rest that I misread that part.
I believe this should be brought to the proper authorities. This is a scandal IMHO.
Personally, I think it is as strong as we could hope. The precedent of the media player is important, and the documentation might be useful. I think it's also something that they can litigate fairly quickly and will still be relevant when the remedies are affirmed (as they ought to be).
I think it's is very little more than the US version of 'pat in the back', after all there is some anymosity towards the US, and this _is_ worse (only a little, though).
Rui
A bit more detail from the EU: http://europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?p_action.gettxt=gt&doc=...;
(beware, long link above - it might have split)
Conduct remedies are: * Microsoft is required, within 120 days, to disclose complete and accurate interface documentation which would allow non-Microsoft work group servers to achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers. * Microsoft is required, within 90 days, to offer to PC manufacturers a version of its Windows client PC operating system without WMP.
The discussion of the interfaces specifically states two things. First, it does not require source-code disclosure, only interface documentation. I would think it fairly likely that interfaces would be either uncopyrightable, or of extremely low commercial value (you can pick up books in shops full of W32 interfaces for tens of pounds ;). I'm not sure whether or not a patent right could subsist in an interface either, I can't really think of a reason why it might.
Second, they state "[If] any of this interface information [is Microsoft] intellectual property [..], Microsoft would be entitled to reasonable remuneration". So, MS' IP rights cannot stop them from publishing the document, we must renumerate them for their rights. Given the lack of rights in interfaces (in my opinion; see above :), I'm not sure the remuneration would amount to much.
Also, the original complaint was not to do with WMP bundling - that's something Super Mario took on during the investigation. The interfaces and interoperation is the important part; I think the EU is doing the WMP because a) it's probably a slam-dunk legally, b) it sets the precedent that MS are not allowed to use their desktop market share to leverage their other products. Remember, Microsoft were found guilty of exactly the same thing in the US - they may have plea-bargained their way to a cosy settlement, but the judgement stuck. The EU is unlikely to be as kind, because they're not a native company. And if the WMP judgement is made to stick over here, other judgements can be made more quickly (and there are others in the works, apparently).
So, I don't really think it's a "pat on the back".
Cheers,
Alex.
On Wed, 2004-03-24 at 23:47 +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
Second, they state "[If] any of this interface information [is Microsoft] intellectual property [..], Microsoft would be entitled to reasonable remuneration". So, MS' IP rights cannot stop them from publishing the document, we must renumerate them for their rights. Given the lack of rights in interfaces (in my opinion; see above :), I'm not sure the remuneration would amount to much.
Of course not. What they're forced to is to create a RAND licensing scheme for their IP. This is unacceptable for competing Free Software.
So, I don't really think it's a "pat on the back".
The _real_ competitor can't compete. So I disagree. Yes, I know you're for Free Software, I just think you're not getting that SAMBA, for instance, is impaired, specially in the case of software patents, which we hope to be able to put down, but are not certain.
Rui
On Wed, 2004-03-24 at 23:51, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
Of course not. What they're forced to is to create a RAND licensing scheme for their IP. This is unacceptable for competing Free Software.
I'm not sure they are saying RAND. The decision posted appears to be sceptical of IP rights subsisting within the disclosed documents; they're just not excluding the possibility. If you can patent APIs, frankly, we have bigger problems than Microsoft.
The decision appears to believe that IP rights do not exist in the APIs. If this is the case, I think you'll find the legal process is very short. Microsoft are planning on appealing the conduct remedies (they cannot appeal the fine; they have to pony that up within three months come what may), one of which is the unbundling, the other is the publication. The unbundling they will oppose on the grounds it's too difficult, but that would probably fail quite quickly because the argument is weak.
The publication of specs they would seek to oppose on the grounds that they would have to make available their IP, and that once made available it cannot be made unavailable. That would be the basis to get injunctive relief on the remedy, to at least run the clock out for a bit. So, when they appeal that, they will have to outline exactly what IP they think they have in those APIs. The EUCC appear to think their IP rights in those APIs are basically squat; that they're trade secrets of value only because they're secret. You cannot ask for compensation for inability to commit a crime; similarly, I don't think Microsoft can ask for money for trade secrets they use to leverage their desktop monopoly.
The _real_ competitor can't compete. So I disagree. Yes, I know you're for Free Software, I just think you're not getting that SAMBA, for instance, is impaired, specially in the case of software patents, which we hope to be able to put down, but are not certain.
I understand the threat of patents, and that RAND does not solve the problem for free software. I'm just willing to give the EU the benefit of the doubt until they publish their decision in the Microsoft case (which, they haven't done yet). The competition commission would be well aware of who the competition actually are, and they cannot be unaware of Samba - this case is specifically about workgroup situations. If it turns out that the disclosures would be useless to Samba, then we should protest. So far, though, the competition commission have been fairly effective as EU institutions go.
They will publish the decision within a week or two, and in a couple of months Microsoft will appeal the decision. I would think at that point there may be a window in the process to make points to the EUCC if we think that the conduct remedy is deficient in some way; but it would be fairly unlikely to change anything now.
Cheers,
Alex.
El Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 12:14:30AM +0000, Alex Hudson deia:
On Wed, 2004-03-24 at 23:51, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
Of course not. What they're forced to is to create a RAND licensing scheme for their IP. This is unacceptable for competing Free Software.
I'm not sure they are saying RAND. The decision posted appears to be sceptical of IP rights subsisting within the disclosed documents; they're just not excluding the possibility. If you can patent APIs, frankly, we have bigger problems than Microsoft.
What do you mean "patent APIs" ? . If you can patent "software not as such" you can possibly encumber any program by patenting what the API does. I don't think you can patent how you call the methods or what parameters they get, but if you can patent the algorithms, data structures, compression, protocols, etc. it means still nobody can use the API.
I agree thatwe need to leave the benefit of doubt for CEC and wait until they publish the decision, but from the imperfect info we have I'd say they could put their interfaces on RAND in as much as they can patent software.