Mario Monti rebuttal?

[Rui Miguel Seabra]

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=IP/04/382|0|RAPID&lg=EN&display=


> 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

-- 
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20040324/c6249f59/attachment.sig>