Microsoft Gives In To the EU 161
An anonymous reader writes with word that Redmond Developer News is reporting
that Microsoft has given in to EU threats of further fines. The company has opened up a whole host of protocols, including the Exchange protocol, under a license, the terms of which are not known. No other news outlet has picked up this story so far.
Don't be fooled (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Wont satisfy Critics? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Competitor, "I'd like a copy of your API specs please!" :D
:(
Microsoft, "Sure that'll be $10 Million"
Competitor, "Here you go!"
Microsoft, "uhhh sorry I meant $20 Million.."
Competitor,
Re:Wont satisfy Critics? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't win with Microsoft. They're incorrigible.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, there's still the tiny problem of pissing off some of the world's leading industry nations, which might be counterproductive if you intend to sell them your products at the same time. If the EU decides that OpenXML won't be accepted for document exchange with/within governmental organizations Microsoft Office would lose in value.
Maybe the German software for electro
Microsoft's game (Score:2)
Welcome to the game.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Not Free (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, the licenses are not free. And, to a large extent, Microsoft is bowing to the European Commission, which decreed the company must make the interfaces public so rivals can compete on what they claim will be a more level playing field.
It appears that this wont make its way into the Open Source community; however, it does open up the market to competition. More competition is better than zero competition.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not a problem.. As more places demand Open Document Format and other NON-Microsoft ISO certified formats, MS will have to adopt open standards instead or be left out.
Re: (Score:2)
embrace, extend, extinguish.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
ISO Certification failure = Product rejection. Embrace, extend, extinguish doens't work when certification acceptance is put in contracts by customers, States and Countries.
ODF Certification is done.. http://www.gcn.com/blogs/tech/40647.html [gcn.com]
Adoby PDF certification application.. http://www.gcn.com/online/vol1_no1/43015-1.html [gcn.com]
However, you are correct they are trying to embrace, extend, extinguish.
MS application.. http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3 618176 [internetnews.com]
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Not Free (Score:5, Interesting)
ISO Certification fast track or not, the Customers will demand formats that exchange nicely. MS is working hard to prevent it as seen in the article..
"Redmonk Analyst Stephen O'Grady said Microsoft could not -- for any number of reasons, most of them political -- support ODF earlier on in the process.
"ODF support would have to be compelled by external parties, and large ones at that," O'Grady said. "I'm sure many within Microsoft hoped that ODF would indeed fade away, but I doubt they expected that, and once it trod down the path towards ISO certification, this move was probably a given." "
It is going to be a fierce battle for a while as MS pushes for their own in house solution and hope the other format will die out because their format is extended.
"The move is a big about-face for Microsoft, which has said it would not natively support ODF, openly dismissing the standard as too "limited" to meet the demands of the market."
MS is trying to define the market again instead of leting the market define the market.
If it is too limited to meet the demands of the market, why is the market demanding it? The market is demanding it because the MS format is too limited. The limitation is in it's inability to be accessed by other systems.
Good luck the the new browser war!
Re: (Score:2)
Not bowing either (Score:2)
I expect though that the EU are wiser than MS is hoping for.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not Free (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't underestimate Apple. They've got a server product, it supports some of the most common things served today out of the box (such as HTTP, LDAP - don't know if they've also got an IMAP server in there but I'd think so).
I reckon they'd love to implement 100% exchange compatability.
Re: (Score:2)
Heck, even Red Hat and Novell have the money, though Novell could maybe do so already under their MS deal, and it'd be out of character for Red Hat to do a proprietary product.
Re: (Score:2)
I am sure that this term will be in the license (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I am sure that this term will be in the license (Score:5, Interesting)
What if some of these specifications were leaked into the public domain by a company that bought a licence - how could you then prove or disprove whether Samba had reverse engineered protocols under their own steam, or seen some of the leaked specifications, mysteriously fast tracking certain features they'd been slaving over?
It could be SCO vs Linux all over again.
Re: (Score:2)
"Why, that's..."
"Yes... 91,100"
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I am sure that this term will be in the license (Score:4, Informative)
You can't "leak" something to the Public Domain; only the copyright holder can release it (by explicitly stating so). Even if a third party publishes it, it's still copyrighted.
Re: (Score:2)
You can leak an algorithm (or protocol) into public domain. Just rewrite it and put into public domain.
You can't leak the original document.
Re: (Score:2)
Could you say for certain that Samba didn't have a sneaky peak at this copyrighted document floating around the net?
Doesn't matter if they read it, as long as they don't copy it.
Re: (Score:2)
2. There are 'proper procedures' that have been followed for decades that involve developers describing how they reverse engineer. As long as the developer claims that they didn't use the specs, I believe its Microsoft's onus that the developer did use the specs. The only effective way to prove the claim is if the developers 'spontaneously' created a compatibl
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I am sure that this term will be in the license (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, I'd venture that Microsoft already thought as much. If they're opening up their specs it may mean that (a) they're desperate to sell to the EU no matter what the possible consequences; (b) they're going to take whatever measures to stop the specs finding their way to free software. NDA's, liability and exorbitant licensing costs are pretty good methods, albeit not infallible. Another trick would be to offer the specs hopelessly obfuscated, but that won't work if they charge an arm and a leg for it -- those who pay want to know what they payed for.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Tried all of those (Score:2)
So - being the optimistic I am - I definitely look forward t
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with the US DMCA is that it's vague enough that almost anything can fall under its protective umbrella, but theoretically reverse engineering is supposed to be al
Re: (Score:2)
Still, I expect the C and C++ standards to be a precedent in this case; there are open source implementations that you can use to create alternate documentation of the standards, which would be your intellectual property, but the original standards cost money.
The trouble is this.. (Score:5, Interesting)
MS has to fight tooth and nail against all common sense or change their business model completely. Guess which will happen as long as they are able to buy congressmen?
Yep, Record sales, record profits..... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They seem to have trouble (Score:5, Insightful)
And America is losing power to influence the world. Most of this is because on the horizon is the vision that they won't be THE dominant player anymore that can strongarm anybody they please, like they were for most of the 20th Century, because of a variety of factors (EU gaining power, China, US own economy and debt).
Microsoft's paid-for Congressman will be doing less good (for them) in the rest of the world as time moves on.
WTO (Score:3, Insightful)
And America is losing power to influence the world. Most of this is because on the horizon is the vision that they won't be THE dominant player anymore that can strongarm anybody they please, like they were for most of the 20th Century, because of a variety of factors (EU gaining power, China, US own economy and debt).
<rant>
Who got the ball rollling on what eventually became the WTO? Wasn't it the USA with the original ITO proposal? Now the USA is finding out that it's not just others who have to play by WTO rules they also have to do so. In a sense the US Govt. shot it self in the foot when it comes to it's freedom to establish mechanisms for strong arming others over trade issues [wikipedia.org]. Not that the EU is any better in this regard, it isn't. The USA likes to keep it's options open on doing things like the Byrd Amendme
Almost impossible. (Score:2)
In the UK for example, all the major parties are normally working in red numbers and the political campaigns cost a fraction of the equivalent in the US.
Announcement (Score:4, Funny)
Fucking Rob Enderle, he's like Herpes (Score:2)
God, I can't stand him. "Principal analyst for market researcher Enderle Group" - yes, principal and only "analyst" for a one-person "group", consisting of him.
Any article that quotes him, is suspect. Any journalist that contacts him for an "analysis" - is at best clueless, and at worst incompetent to write on technological matters.
Fucking Rob Enderle! When will the world be rid of this know-nothing stooge? He's like Herp
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You forgot his hamster.
Binary protocol translation modules (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, I would guess that Microsoft's license tries to deal with this problem. Probably in a way analogous to Numerical Recipes' clause:
Too bad the EU couldn't force them to go totally open.
Well it isn't surprising (Score:4, Interesting)
Remember: Anti-monopoly rulings don't necessarily mean that competitors get everything they want for free, it just means that you have to make it reasonable for your competitors to work with what you have. For example when phone companies had to let CLECs in, they don't have to give them the space for free. They can, and do, charge them for all the rack space they use. However it has to be a reasonable and non-discriminatory fee meaning they can't say "Uhh ok it's $100,000 per 1RU and you can only buy one."
I'm sure the MS deal will be similar. You'll be able to license their specs for whatever is covered under the agreement, and the fees will be fixed and reasonable, but it will cost money and there may be conditions on it. That's probably fine for the EU. Their concern isn't making OSS fans happy, their concern is that companies be able to produce products that compete with Microsoft's stuff.
Re:Well it isn't surprising (Score:4, Interesting)
Costing money is fine as long as the fees are reasonable. But the conditions will be far more important. If there's a condition that reads like "this license is not valid if the protocol is used in conjunction with Open Source Software", then it will be completely unacceptable. It's quite nearly the same as saying "any company can license our software except {list of competitors}". For the pure OSS supporters, I know that having to pay license fees will not be acceptable, but it's not reasonable to expect a company to give everything away. The goal of this is to make sure that a large company does not abuse its dominant market position in such as way as to prevent competitors from obtaining a share of that market. Reasonable license fees with fairness to all potential competitors are an acceptable way of reaching that goal.
No, a condition like that isn't a real problem (Score:2)
Also remember that the reasonable fees coul
Re: (Score:2)
And that would be a bad thing because.... ?
Sorry, let me rephrase that: That would be a bad thing for the EU because...?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If the EU demanded a total, open, no cost solution, MS probably wouldn't give in. Heck they might even rather pull out of the European market entirely than do that.
I've heard people say this sort of thing before. Let me tell you what would happen if MS decided to "pull out" of the EU. Realistically, the board of directors at MS would have an emergency meeting and fire the CEO then appoint someone new who would apologize for the old CEO and claim he had lost his mind or something. Then, MS would probably pressure the US to deport the now criminal CEO to the EU for prosecution and/or institutionalization. Then business would go back to normal except with a lot more an
Re:Is IMAP open enough for ya? (Score:4, Insightful)
If an organization really, honestly, truly wants to not use Outlook... NOBODY is forcing them to. But it's so much easier to whine and moan.
Exchange is the best product of it's kind out there. Ever try using Notes? Yech... what a train wreck. How about Openview? Disaster. Oh wait!! Let's use Fetchmail! [securitytracker.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, the post implies that ms-exchange is open by using IMAP. This is pure bullshit, and is either completely misinformed or an attempt to troll/astroturf.
"undisclosed terms" != "open up" (Score:2, Insightful)
The article is wrong! (Score:5, Informative)
The key communications protocols are the ones where Microsoft has a monopoly position... namely,
The protocols by which a Windows 95 / 98 / NT / 2000 PC joins and authenticates with the Domain Controller.
NTFS, Active Drirectory, SMB etc. would be some other protocls of interest.
To my knowledge, Exchange Server, Share Point etc. are not areas of monopoly for Microsoft.
The article is plain WRONG. It might be some more PR spin by MS as usual, though. You want us to open up our protocols? Okay... here's how Dynamics CRM talks to SharePoint Portal! One thinks the EU inspectors will not be susceptible to such tricks.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
To my knowledge, Exchange Server, Share Point etc. are not areas of monopoly for Microsoft.
From TFA:
The list of available protocols, XML schemas and application programming interfaces (APIs) include transport protocols for communications between Office Outlook 2007 and Exchange Server 2007. (Emphasis added)
Seriously, it was in the very next paragraph to the one you quoted. Of all the products produced by MS, the only one
Re: (Score:2)
What you care about isn't important (your low
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
To my knowledge, Exchange Server, Share Point etc. are not areas of monopoly for Microsoft.
I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of monopoly abuse. The law does not forbid MS from having a monopoly, it forbids them from tying monopolized products to products in other markets. In this case MS does not have a monopoly on some protocol. They have a monopoly on desktop operating systems. Any protocols that secretly communicate between MS's desktop operating system and some other product offering in a different market (Windows server) mean that people in the market for a server OS
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of companies bought a Windows based exchange server instead of a Linux based server because exchange was built into their Windows desktops and they needed something to talk to them and the Linux server could not do so because the protocol was being kept secret.
No aspect of Exchange is "built into" anyone's "Windows desktops".
Re: (Score:2)
Outlook Express, now renamed "Windows Mail" shipped with every one. In Vista there is now a calendar application as well. Also, there is the MS Office integration, although MS has fought long and hard to make sure no lawsuits that might see MS Office declared a monopoly ever reach a verdict, being careful to settle them all out of court.
Re: (Score:2)
Outlook Express, now renamed "Windows Mail" shipped with every one.
And ? OE is not an Exchange client, it's a generic email client. It talks IMAP, POP and HTTP.
In Vista there is now a calendar application as well.
Which uses the iCalendar standard and WebDAV to share calendars.
Also, there is the MS Office integration, although MS has fought long and hard to make sure no lawsuits that might see MS Office declared a monopoly ever reach a verdict, being careful to settle them all out of court.
Therefor
OMG - I was there! I was there! (Score:5, Funny)
"No other news outlet has picked up this story so far"
Wow. I feel honored. I can now tell my grandkids when I'm old and crusty that I actually saw a peice of news that was posted first on Slashdot - as opposed to the usual way of things being recycled from Fark, Digg or CNET. Or worse, a Roland Pickadoor submission.
Is that a tear forming in the corner of my eye? Sniff.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
--Q
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft Gives In To the EU? (Score:5, Insightful)
You must be new here... (Score:2, Funny)
(Ballmer and his frickin' chairs... THEY NEVER COME DOWN!)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ISR (Score:2)
Microsoft gives in to EU!
[running from Slashdot crowd with torches and pitchforks]
that's not "opening up" (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On the desktop, Microsoft's biggest competi
Seen it all before (Score:5, Insightful)
The lawsuit *is* about the licensing. It is not about the protocols. Saying "you'll get the protocols but we'll define the licensing and the fees next time" is like saying "I will make you rich, and I'll define rich for you".
First I was about to joke .. (Score:5, Insightful)
Then again MS was delaying the game to draw attention off the fact that they're defending their monopoly much more effectively in another place: Standards, closed, non-compatible Data Formats and Software Patents. The former two are great devices of market control. The EU ought to do something about that. Probalby MS wasn't really interested in lobbying in this as, as giving in here isn't so much a loss for them as it would be if they where required to comply to an amount of standard IT standards. Now *that* would be the appropriate punishment for MS.
I'll rest when MS has 50% market share or less.
American Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
(continued elsewhere in the damn-you-for-creating-co2-with-your-cheese-obsess
Re: (Score:2)
Clock is Ticking (Score:2)
Microsoft will cease to have relevance one year from Now!!!
Maybe not exactly a year, but if there could be quality OSS products integrate
Law of Unintended Consequences (Score:2)
What will they find to feed their addiction?
Schrodinger's protocol (Score:2)
Does this strike anyone else as a bluff? "Here's the protocol. But there is a license before you can read it. And the license is unknown."
Technically, it's available. But it's also not at the same time.
Meow.
Fines (Score:2)
Open? (Score:2)
Delaying tactic. (Score:2)
did anyone else read: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Stop the press - software engineer, sorry, programmer ... comes onto Slashdot and says "Ha! I wrote the shittest code you've ever fucking seen! Even with written protocols you have sod all chance of implementing something that interoperates ... good luck suckaz!"
... I commend you
Sir, madame, whatever
Re: (Score:2)
Exchange today, is an awesome piece of software, and wont be matched anytime soon. But even with the old shit, nobody has improved or even come close to what the schedule/calendar was way back when.
Re: (Score:2)
Including Microsoft...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You are welcome to an account on Slashdot and don't have to be an AC.
For the record anyone can make their own protocols but unless we have some agreement then inter communication between different platforms would be impossible.
You see you'd end up with a monopoly otherwise if others weren't able to talk to your software.
I bet you didn't know THAT.
Regards
Re: (Score:2)
Since all businesses legally exist only by government charter, I'd say it does.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)