Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Microsoft Makes EU Dispute Docs Public

Posted by Zonk on Fri Feb 24, 2006 12:15 PM
from the what-was-this-all-about dept.
Microsoft Government Politics
mjdroner writes "ZDNet is reporting that Microsoft has posted confidential documents used in its defense of European Commission antitrust practices related to server software. Explaining the posting of the documents, which the EC considers confidential, a Microsoft rep said, 'Transparency is vitally important in what can be a very opaque process in Brussels.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Microsoft Source Code Still Not Enough for EU? 337 comments
wjsteele writes "The BBC is reporting that Microsoft's offer to allow rivals access to its software blueprint may not be enough to prevent European Union action." From the article: "Its offer to open up its software blueprints 'underscored its commitment' to meet the European Commission's demands, Horacio Gutierrez associate general counsel for Microsoft Europe said in a statement. However, Brussels has warned the offer may not go far enough. 'It would be premature to conclude that offering access to source codes would necessarily resolve the problem of compliance," said EU anti-trust spokesman Jonathan Todd.'
[+] Microsoft Accuses European Union of Collusion 265 comments
GarbagePailKid wrote to mention the news that Microsoft has filed a formal complaint alleging that the EU colluded with company rivals and hid critical documents during the EU regulation hearings. According to Microsoft: "While the documents provided do not include the direct correspondence between the commission and its technical experts, they show that the commission, the trustee, and Microsoft's adversaries were secretly collaborating throughout the fall of 2005 in a manner inconsistent with the commission's role as neutral regulator and the Trustee's role as independent monitor..."
[+] Microsoft To Appeal EU Decision 237 comments
An anonymous reader writes "News.com has an article on Microsoft's upcoming appeal of the EU antitrust decision. Their argument is essentially that they shouldn't be penalized for becoming successful in a marketplace." From the article: "Microsoft relies on the fact that its communication protocols are technologically innovative and are covered by intellectual-property rights ... [the company] had designed its Windows server operating systems from the outset to interoperate with non-Microsoft server operating systems"
[+] EU Prepared to Fine Microsoft $2.5 Million Per Day 659 comments
Lord_Slepnir writes "The European Union is unsatisfied with Microsoft's compliance with their anti-trust compliance from 2004, and is preparing to fine them 2 million Euros ($2.5m US) per day until they comply. Under that ruling, Microsoft must open up parts of their operating system to competitors, and change how they bundle Media Player." From the article: "On Monday, Microsoft said it had begun to provide the information Brussels had demanded, but the Commission has signaled the company acted too late. In December, Brussels informed the software giant that it had failed to comply with the original ruling it issued in March 2004."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Microsoft Makes EU Dispute Docs Public 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • ask a billion people (Score:5, Interesting)

    by yagu (721525) * <<yayagu> <at> <gmail.com>> on Friday February 24 2006, @12:17PM (#14794256) Journal

    If you can't get the opinion or results you want from the commission, throw it out to the public and see if you can generate a groundswell of support.

    I think this is what Microsoft hopes to do. I doubt they'll succeed.

    From The Fine Article (emphasis mine):

    But a Commission monitoring trustee, one of several nominated by Microsoft, as well as competitors and a technical review committee gave Microsoft's documentation scathing reviews. The trustee called it "fundamentally flawed. "

    The commission isn't buying Microsoft's protest, the "buying" public won't either.

    What's interesting though is just in sheer numbers, Microsoft will find empathy, support, and voices to support their claim they're being treated unfairly.

  • Two can play at that game... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by advocate_one (662832) on Friday February 24 2006, @12:20PM (#14794293)
    I'm pretty sure Microsoft won't want the evidence that the EU commission holds to come out in public...
      • oh come off it... we DO NOT WANT SOURCE CODE... seeing it taints you and makes _any_ code you write potentially dangerous. Not to mention the ridiculous NDAs you have to sign just to get to see the stuff... the source code is completely useless to the SAMBA project and any other OSS team. Microsoft know this, but they're grandstanding and hoping the general public don't know... no one wanted XP N because Microsoft made pretty damned sure the OEMs wouldn't take it up... I'd bet my last dollar that behind th

  • Aim, Shoot Foot !! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Akoma The Immortal (36474) <<pascal> <at> <abessolo.com>> on Friday February 24 2006, @12:20PM (#14794298) Homepage
    Ho Boy, Ho Boy,

    The battle is heating up. I can see now that the UE have the moral incensitive to switch their document to OpenDocument in the near future.

    I Hope they do.

    • The battle is heating up. I can see now that the UE have the moral incensitive to switch their document to OpenDocument in the near future.

      Do you mean they could be morally incensed enough to switch their document format?

      Or they could be morally insensitive enough to switch their document format?

      The latter would be ... odd.

  • Put another way (Score:5, Insightful)

    by overshoot (39700) on Friday February 24 2006, @12:21PM (#14794310)
    1. Microsoft wants to put their version before the public while the ECC is stuck keeping much of theirs under confidentiality wraps.
    2. Microsoft has decided that there's no remaining downside to flipping the ECC the bird.

    Conclusion: go for it.

    • 2. Microsoft has decided that there's no remaining downside to flipping the ECC the bird.

      "Microsoft: You are banned from selling any software in Europe for the next three years"

      I don't think they will, but for Microsoft the potential downside of pissing off those in nominal control of a huge marketplace has no end. In theory Bill could end up in jail, and he might get arrested and released 'just to send the message'.

      I get the feeling that the dumb games they have been playing are going to come back to

        • They would NEVER threaten that ban - in fact, I'd say microsoft threatening to totally withdraw product sales and support from europe would be more a threat to european interests than microsofts.

          I'm unsure how copyright law works in Europe, but I would imagine EU member nations could respond by passing laws that remove the copyright protection enjoyed by Microsoft's products in their countries.

          Two can play the scorched earth game.

          • I'm unsure how copyright law works in Europe, but I would imagine EU member nations could respond by passing laws that remove the copyright protection enjoyed by Microsoft's products in their countries.

            At which point they are in violation of the Berne convention and about a dozen other IP treaties they've signed off on. Not that MS is really going to withdraw its products, but if, hypothetically, they did, the EU would either have to let them go, or watch the entire worldwide IP system fall apart. Consi

  • Can't wait to see how the seething "hate Microsoft" crowd spins this one.

    Flat out: transparency in government is a good thing.
    EU government (and the US gov't for that matter) is entirely too opaque for my preference.
    • This is Microsoft releasing their own documents. Are you going to argue that Microsoft is the government?
    • Transparency is great. Is this the way to go about it, though? It depends on which documents they released. If they provided all relevant documentation, then I don't much care whether they violated some Brussels policy. But if they only released their defense, while their opponents are still obligated to keep the "evidence for the prosecution" under wraps, then it's hardly a blow for transparency in government.

      All I can find is "Microsoft's Response to the European Commission," so I don't think I'm far

    • Re:transparency FTW (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      This isn't transparency though. Microsoft have published their response and two expert opinions. Great. But surely you realise that's only part of the picture? And that the EU cannot disclose the rest of the picture because Microsoft have a right to privacy that they have yet to formally waive?

      This stinks. Microsoft gets to select bits and pieces to support their case, while keeping the rest under wraps, and the EU can't respond because Microsoft has a right to privacy - and yet Microsoft are being

      • he EU cannot disclose the rest of the picture because Microsoft have a right to privacy that they have yet to formally waive?

        By violating any confidentiality agreements of the proceedings, Microsoft may be ruled by the EU as having waived all rights to confidentiality of the proceedings. Pissing off judges is not the recommended way to get a ruling in your favor.

    • Re:transparency FTW (Score:5, Insightful)

      by timeOday (582209) on Friday February 24 2006, @01:13PM (#14794817)
      Selectively releasing private corresondence that is flattering to you, after editing out anything you'd prefer stayed secret (RTA), doesn't really qualify as "transparency" in my book.

      If Microsoft is such a fan of transparency, maybe the EU should release all the correspondence in full, including the Microsoft "business secrets." (But of course, then Microsoft would throw a legal hissy fit.)

      • say that SCO wants certain documents kept secret in their case.

        And they have. The final list that supposedly contains the details of the contested code IBM supposedly put into Linux was filed under seal. Only SCO, IBM and the court know what's in it.
          • And more broadly, too often on /. if MSFT does it, it must be evil. It's simply not always the case.
            Just too often to be ignored. Microsoft aren't unpopular because they're successful, they're unpopular because they deserve to be.
      • Let's turn it around, and say that SCO wants certain documents kept secret in their case.

        Let's turn this around a little more and say SCO requested that some of IBM's responses should be sealed because they contain SCO's "IP" - while on the other hand spinning the PR as to say that IBM does not have a valid response. They know nobody's going to shot them down for it, as nobody has access to the response to check their claims.

        For all you know, if the EC can't, for whatever reason, put forth their own version

  • Sauce for the Goose (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pmc (40532) on Friday February 24 2006, @12:23PM (#14794323) Homepage
    'Transparency is vitally important in what can be a very opaque process in Brussels

    But apparently transparency is not vitally important for APIs.
      • I think what the parent poster is reffering to is the (alleged) hidden APIs [qwest.net] in Windows. You know, the ones that give say Word a slight performance edge over Word Perfect...

        Sure, we don't need or usually even want to know how the underlying implementation works but if your going to create an API, why two? One for you and your crew and a, um sub-par, one for everyone else? How is that "transparent"?
  • Lol transparency indeed. But only when it serves Microsoft's own purposes otherwise it's take a hike.

  • Can't believe it! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by malsdavis (542216) * on Friday February 24 2006, @12:29PM (#14794392)
    "Transparency is vitally important in what can be a very opaque process in Brussels."

    I don't believe what I'm reading! Since when have Microsoft been interested in transparancy and openness. This is the same company that calls Open Source Softare an evil communist cancer. The same company which held secret dodgy meetings with the Republican administration which saw the US government change its mind from wanting to split up the company to wanting to give it a light slap on the wrist.

    And now they want transparancy. Talk about double standards!

    • Re:Can't believe it! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tibike77 (611880) <tibikegamezNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Friday February 24 2006, @12:36PM (#14794456) Journal
      And this one here was also priceless... "More broadly, the company suggested the Commission could look at the process used in the United States, where a court also found that Microsoft had violated antitrust law."

      RIGHT. Excuse me for being an European and LAUGHING my ass off each and EVERY time I hear about ANOTHER idiotic legal experience from the USA. Next time I hear somebody start saying "US Legal system is better in/because/...", I'll just hit him over the head with a large brick and let him TRY to sue me.
  • 'Transparency is vitally important in what can be a very opaque process in Brussels.'

    Kinda like Open Source, would't you say?

  • Hmmmm... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Noryungi (70322) on Friday February 24 2006, @12:30PM (#14794401) Homepage Journal
    What I'd like to see is the European Commission slap a huge fine on Microsoft for publishing these documents, as well as drag a couple of European Microsoft Executives to courts for breach of confidentiality. Add a couple of cotempt of court proceedings against the lawyers who handled the documents, and we are all set for a big legal fight.

    I am not joking: Europe has some fairly strict laws concerning the confidentiality of judicial proceedings. For instance, in France, journalists can be convicted for publishing documents related to an ongoing investigation, and I think it's the same in Germany and in the UK. (And before American citizens out there start screaming: "Freedom of Speech!", please remember that these rules have been edicted to protect the "innocence" of a person/company until proven guilty).

    So, this little spat between Microsoft and the EU could become interesting quite quickly...
      • I thought in France one is guilty until proven innocent? =)

        No, that's in Cuba. You know, the little bit of Cuba in the bottom-right corner with the Stars and Stripes flying over it?

        TWW

  • I have a feeling Microsoft never bought into the whole Dale Carnegie bit about winning friends. In the US, I opine MS could face sanctions. Be interesting to see what happens here.
  • ... is that Microsoft's primary crime in this case is that it is not a European company. The company can publish whatever it wants, but in the end the commission will do whatever it believes is right for European business. At the end of the day Microsoft will still not be one of those European companies and will pay a price for it.

    Novell could have dealt with all of this in a much more positive manner three years ago when they bought SUSE. If they'd picked up their corporate HQ and moved it from Utah to Ger

    • Re:The reality here... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) on Friday February 24 2006, @12:58PM (#14794663)

      Microsoft's primary crime -- of which it has been found guilty and for which it has been sentenced -- was breaking monopoly rules. Anything they're doing here is secondary (assuming that what they're doing here really is wrong; I haven't read the documents so I don't know whether Microsoft or the EC is in the right at this point).

      Just because the current US administration laughably let off their own corporation within days of coming to power for dubious reasons, you can't really expect anyone else to do the same. Nor can you realistically claim that the rest of the world is somehow being harsh on Microsoft just because they actually enforce their own laws against them where the US obviously and publicly declined to do so (after a change of administration). Microsoft knew the rules, knew it was at best walking a tightrope, and chose to do business that way anyway.

      In any case, you seem to have little understanding of how European "democracy" works. European Commissioners are almost entirely unaccountable. Many are political rejects whose prominent careers failed in their own countries to the extent that they could no longer hold a high public office credibly, and thus they get assigned (not voted by the electorate) to positions on the EC by national governments looking out for their own. The whole thing is a corrupt pile of politicised shenanigans, and if you really think the commissioners care anything for the electorate or businesses, rather than their own political lives and protecting those who installed them in their positions of power, you need to read a little more about how European politics works and why it needs changing.

    • ... is that Microsoft's primary crime in this case is that it is not a European company.

      And what's the excuse for it being convicted in US courts?

      The only difference I see is the EC is actually enforcing the penalty handed down after the conviction. The US decided for the figurative "slap on the wrist" and are now trying to figure out what to do because MS isn't sitting still for even that.

  • 200 pages of documents.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by NigelJohnstone (242811) on Friday February 24 2006, @12:42PM (#14794513)
    ...explaining why they can't deliver 200 pages of documentation....
  • It's obvious that this will not exactly earn microsoft any friends, by doing this they're actually trying to take the power out of the hands of the EC, and at the same time halfway calling them incompetent, by questioning their procedure. The EC isn't a very beloved institution, neither is Microsoft, so when you bring in the public, you bring in a lot of feelings. If I was part of the EC, and saw that a company was trying to make this kind of case into a witch hunt, i'd be pissed, and I think MS is going to

  • Clear (Score:3, Interesting)

    by umbrellasd (876984) on Friday February 24 2006, @12:52PM (#14794609)
    a Microsoft rep said, 'Transparency is vitally important in what can be a very opaque process in Brussels.'
    And I say, "Source code transparency of the OS is vitally important in any critical business process."

    Hypocritical. Bastards.

    • Why is open source the solution?

      Honestly, I don't see why a company should be forced to expose their source code. A company investing billions into code has the right to protect their investment.

      Should Mercedez, GM, Ford, BMW, VW, Fiat, Ferrari etc post detailed plans of every car and engine technology they design.
      Should google disclose their indexing technology?
      Should the US or EU post documents about every weapon they are in development or have developed.
      Should an airplane company like AirBus post plans
  • M$ spouting about the value of transparency and open-ness. Next thing you know it'll be the need for interoperability with other OS'es and the value of supporting standards.

  • MacroHard (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Doc Ruby (173196) on Friday February 24 2006, @01:52PM (#14795200) Homepage Journal
    The king of closed source violates nondisclosure to demand transparency in their defense of their closed-source monopoly.
    • After all, it's rather hard to tamper-proof a Word document. Besides, don't forget about word's infamous "history" feature that could probably allow you to see where it was edited.
    • It's like back in 2002, where Steve Ballmer 'Wept for Windows' during the Anti-Trust season. Microsoft released a video of it in both Windows Media Player and RealPlayer format, obviously wanting everybody to be able to see the pain Ballmer was going through, trying to get some sympathy votes.

      It's the same now: if you want to make sure that everybody can view your data, Microsoft formats alone are not the way to go.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.