Microsoft Responds to EU With Another Question 545
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft has responded to the latest round of EU requests by asking how much the EU thinks they should charge for Windows Server Protocols. The EU has stated the Microsoft should charge based on 'innovation, not patentability' and that they have 'examined 160 Microsoft claims to patented technologies' concluding 'only four may only deserve to claim a limited degree of innovation.' The EU is also starting to discuss structural remedies as opposed to the behavioral remedies they are currently enforcing. At what point has/will the EU overstepped its bounds?"
Perhaps a better question... (Score:0, Interesting)
Whatever point you pick, I'll bet Microsoft has overstepped it! Face it; the EU wouldn't even be considering such actions if Microsoft had behaved as a decent corporate citizen.
Well beyond their boundaries (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Too late... (Score:2, Interesting)
It certainly hasn't overstepped its bounds yet (Score:4, Interesting)
Well if it bankrupted the company then yes that would be too far certainly. If it made it so the company when complying with the law (ie not being fined) could not actualy make a profit after costs, that would be too far.
Many prices are restricted by goverments - I suspect even in the US though I don't know for certain. Things like the cost per unit of electricity, water, gas, telecoms, public transport when run by private companies. These are to ensure that companies that have effective monopolies cannot abuse the position.
Same with mircosoft. I agree they should be able to charge what they want for their software. But where they have a protocol or an API that completely separate instance of software talk to (eg from a different computer on the network of from a piece of software that is not part of the OS, or not part of the same software suite) then those interfaces, protocols and APIs should be documented and the information provided for free.
Yes they can protect their code and their implementations, but the fact you have a microsoft server should not force you to have a microsoft desktop in order to use it - other desktop made by others should be able to communicate on the same level. And vice versa, it should be perfectly possible, from complete and freely available documentation to implement a server that will behave from a clients point of view in the same way a microsoft server would. This is simply fair competition.
Microsoft would then have to get by on the merits of it software, rather than on vendor lock in.
Oh for goodness sake (Score:4, Interesting)
The hell with it - MS should have to open them for free. In fact, I'd be in favour of mandating that _all_ protocols should be open. You don't need to open your implementation, but other people should be able to use your protocols.
Re:Too late... (Score:4, Interesting)
MS are playing it wrong (Score:2, Interesting)
Bounds? What Bounds? (Score:4, Interesting)
Assuming the EU has the power, the next question is should it? Well, I personally think it's going to be the only way to bring Microsoft into line. It has a long history of nodding yes to the courts and the authorities, and then just finding some new way of doing what it wants. The EU certainly has had limited success getting Microsoft to even adhere to the demands it has made already, and certainly cannot be ignorant of Microsoft's behavior in elsewhere in the world. Since Microsoft won't co-operate in any meaningful way, likely won't stop the behavior that has lead to the present impasse, what other option is there than to remake it into something that will obey European rules?
Re:At what point? (Score:3, Interesting)
Fixed that for you
Re:Something I don't get about the whole MS-EU thi (Score:3, Interesting)
Not to mention that if Microsoft turned away from this market, business partners and subsidiaries of European countries would suddenly have a strong incentive to consider alternatives too.
what's really at stake .. (Score:5, Interesting)
The real question is whether a single company should get a lock in on PROTOCOLS, never mind what they should charge for them. Is this an example of the polluted protocols MS talked about in that Valloppillil email.
"By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we can DENY OSS [interesting-people.org] projects ENTRY into the MARKET."
'At what point has/will the EU overstepped its bounds'
At what point will MS realise it isn't dealing with the DOJ?
Re:Too late... (Score:4, Interesting)
So let me get this straight: In order to preserve the "free market", the government has to introduce special incentives to motivate people to produce useful stuff?
Maybe I missed something in economics class, but I thought the whole point of a "free market" was that the market itself created the incentives, and that government distortion of those incentives leads to inefficiency...
Of course, personally I think that intervention and tampering with markets can often be a good thing (by legitimate, functioning democratic institutions, not corrupt governments), I just had to point out that your own reasoning is contradictory: Patents are a distortion of a "free market", so abolishing them can't possibly jeopardize the freedom of said market.
Re:Utilities (Score:1, Interesting)
In the analogy: gas mileage = service, area A = Hummer, and moving = changing cars. For some people changing cars is even more expensive than moving physical locations, and for others it's actually impossible (if they need a Hummer to get around). Sure you could argue that they shouldn't have gotten so tied to the vehicle in the first place, but saying that doesn't actually help anything.
Re:Publish or Perish (Score:3, Interesting)