"EU hands another fine to Microsoft"

[tuteja1986]

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/07/12/EU_hands_another_fine_to_Microsoft/

Okay when this whole anti-trust case started i wasn't caring but now things are just getting totally crazy. In carefull wording by EU they wanting/forcing MS to give their source code. "

Would you give up your source code to your competitor ;?

Arr it just seem to me that euro court just wants to make some big buck for some new expansion and they see Microsoft as the bank to rob legally.

 

[DaveSimmons]

MS was not asked to share source code, they were required to share APIs, protocols, formats so that software companies could make their products interoperate.

"The Commission requires Microsoft to give information to rival server software makers to make their applications run smoothly with Microsoft's ubiquitous Windows operating system. "

MS did a ridiculously bad job of sharing information, making it clear they weren't really willing to let competitors create alternatives to MS servers or clients.

Microsoft is the one who offered to share source code, but not license- or royalty-free, and as an almost useless alternative to providing real documentation.

They are also either lying about the difficulty of providing documentation, or incredibly incompetent in not having any documentation of the server APIs and formats for internal use.

 

[kamper]

I listened to an interview with Jeremy Allison a while ago (he's a samba dev) and his take on reverse engineering all the microsoft protocols is that they start from a document/plan and then diverge wildly as development goes on. So the only real documentation ends up being the code and the only possible proof of correctness is testing all microsoft products together. Although they've obviously got little impetus to be overly forthcoming (until recently anyway), I'd be willing to believe that it really is that difficult for them.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Incompetence it is then.

Not ever updating their documents to reflect changes during coding, even after a release point, is such bad practice that it's hard to credit.

But if each new Microsoft developer hired has to start with nothing and figure out integration from just the code I suppose that's one factor in why MS server OSs ship a year or two behind schedule.

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Not ever updating their documents to reflect changes during coding, even after a release point, is such bad practice that it's hard to credit.

Yeah, that would be the prevailing theory. The only problem is that they don't seem to be having any trouble making lots of money with this strategy.

 

[tuteja1986]

Microsoft did comply with all the crappy demands.

1st : full and accurate disclosure of all APIs . Microsoft did that with every documentation they had but EU spent a year looking over thoes document and said it was incomplete and poorly organized.
2nd : Then Microsoft offered API full source code with 500 tranning hrs to every compititor that used the code. Again EU said it wasn't enough
3rd : "Microsoft then asked for formal guidelines on what specifically was wrong with the existing documentation, and what format the new documentation should take. This was supplied by the EC indepedent trustee Neil Barrett in March of this year (4 months ago).

Since those four months have passed, Microsoft has had a team of 300+ engineers working triple-shift on the documentation project. It has *already* delivered 6 of the 7 planned installments of this rewrite, and plans to deliver the last within the next couple of weeks."

Microsoft also offered alot of other stuff which EU court said it wasn't eough. EU court has left go other Major Coportation for much bigger charges

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: tuteja1986
In carefull wording by EU they wanting/forcing MS to give their source code. "

Would you give up your source code to your competitor ;?

Arr it just seem to me that euro court just wants to make some big buck for some new expansion and they see Microsoft as the bank to rob legally.

Originally posted by: tuteja1986
Microsoft did comply with all the crappy demands. ... .

Sounds like you've made up your mind regardless of the facts, and are accepting MS PR's side of the case at face value because you hate the EU.

MS does have monopoly power and has been convicted of abusing it in many ways. That was after a couple of earlier settlements to avoid trials for earlier abuses dating back to MS-DOS 6 and Windows 3.1. They have paid out well over a billion dollars to settle civil suits in the US for abuse of their monopoly power.

I make a living developing Windows application software using Microsoft development tools like Visual Studio, and I've never installed a copy of linux, so I'm not some dirty hippie Penguin-loving cultist. I just see the bad they've done along with the good, instead of feeling blind loyalty to a corporation.

 

[Smilin]

Kids, this is just blatant anti-American backlash going on.

MS has provided better documentation to the EU than it maintains for itself and they are still griping!!!

The EU doesn't want a fair playing field, they just want money.

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: Smilin

The EU doesn't want a fair playing field, they just want money.

Couldn't have said it better myself. There are plenty of alternatives to MS products, and they did comply with the EU's demands.

All the EU wants is money and to screw over their citizens.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Smilin
Kids, this is just blatant anti-American backlash going on.

Then why do US courts fine MS too?

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Smilin
Kids, this is just blatant anti-American backlash going on.

Then why do US courts fine MS too?

Uh. Are you even aware of what we are talking about? The US is not fining MS for this.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Smilin
Kids, this is just blatant anti-American backlash going on.

Then why do US courts fine MS too?

Uh. Are you even aware of what we are talking about? The US is not fining MS for this.

The US has fined MS over monopoly law violations. Why is it OK for them?

 

[spyordie007]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Smilin
Kids, this is just blatant anti-American backlash going on.

Then why do US courts fine MS too?

Uh. Are you even aware of what we are talking about? The US is not fining MS for this.

The US has fined MS over monopoly law violations. Why is it OK for them?

That's a little bit differant than the EU strongarming MSFT into giving their IP away...

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Smilin
Kids, this is just blatant anti-American backlash going on.

Then why do US courts fine MS too?

Uh. Are you even aware of what we are talking about? The US is not fining MS for this.

The US has fined MS over monopoly law violations. Why is it OK for them?

They were fining MS over apples, not oranges.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: tuteja1986
Microsoft did comply with all the crappy demands.

1st : full and accurate disclosure of all APIs . Microsoft did that with every documentation they had but EU spent a year looking over thoes document and said it was incomplete and poorly organized.
2nd : Then Microsoft offered API full source code with 500 tranning hrs to every compititor that used the code. Again EU said it wasn't enough
3rd : "Microsoft then asked for formal guidelines on what specifically was wrong with the existing documentation, and what format the new documentation should take. This was supplied by the EC indepedent trustee Neil Barrett in March of this year (4 months ago).

Since those four months have passed, Microsoft has had a team of 300+ engineers working triple-shift on the documentation project. It has *already* delivered 6 of the 7 planned installments of this rewrite, and plans to deliver the last within the next couple of weeks."

Microsoft also offered alot of other stuff which EU court said it wasn't eough. EU court has left go other Major Coportation for much bigger charges

Actually, Microsoft still has time to turn in all their documentation. It is due next week sometime and Microsoft says that it will have all of it done before the deadline. So I don't understand why they are being fined when they still have time left.

Yea, I think some monopolies are bad, but this is going too far. The fines are outragous. They should look at what Microsoft has provided and then issue a fine appropriate to what they did not deliver. However, I don't think that this will happen because the EU doesn't care about compliance. They seem to just care about raking in the money. Seriously, fining microsoft almost a billion dollars over this? Remember, this is the same EU that told Microsoft that they had to make Windows N, or somthing like that. How stupid can you get?

 

[Cruise51]

Unless any of you have seen the documentation Microsoft has provided, how can you confirm or deny it is of quality and usefullness? Volume can not guarentee quality.

 

[xtknight]

They seriously need to get off of MS's case for a change. Seems like I see a news item every day about the EU doing this or that to MS.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Cruise51
Unless any of you have seen the documentation Microsoft has provided, how can you confirm or deny it is of quality and usefullness? Volume can not guarentee quality.

They provided the source code.

That's as documented as it gets!

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: Cruise51
Unless any of you have seen the documentation Microsoft has provided, how can you confirm or deny it is of quality and usefullness? Volume can not guarentee quality.

They provided the source code.

That's as documented as it gets!

Code is typically horrible documentation.

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: Cruise51
Unless any of you have seen the documentation Microsoft has provided, how can you confirm or deny it is of quality and usefullness? Volume can not guarentee quality.

They provided the source code.

That's as documented as it gets!

Spoken like a lazy programmer....

 

[QueBert]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: Cruise51
Unless any of you have seen the documentation Microsoft has provided, how can you confirm or deny it is of quality and usefullness? Volume can not guarentee quality.

They provided the source code.

That's as documented as it gets!

Code is typically horrible documentation.

I don't hate MS, and I don't know anything about the EU. Here's what I do know about M$

I buy their OS, and they shove software down my throat. I don't like MS Messenger, I don't like Media Player, I don't like Outlook Express. Why the hell can't I just buy XP? And anyone who believes MS is complying with EU requests without any hassle is crazy. MS had a problem with programs like Trillian that connected to MS Messenger. A program which I hate, I disable, but end up always having to uninstall because somehow if you leave it on your PC, it will put itself in your starup folder whenever it feels like it. I can only make a guess, but my guess is MS's documentation is 1. crappy and 2. very incomplete. Competition ain't bad, but shoving software down my throat is. I could run Linux, and MS could open up a bit and allow some other companies to make a little money. It's not like they're hurting...

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: QueBert

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: Cruise51
Unless any of you have seen the documentation Microsoft has provided, how can you confirm or deny it is of quality and usefullness? Volume can not guarentee quality.

They provided the source code.

That's as documented as it gets!

Code is typically horrible documentation.

I don't hate MS, and I don't know anything about the EU. Here's what I do know about M$

I buy their OS, and they shove software down my throat. I don't like MS Messenger, I don't like Media Player, I don't like Outlook Express. Why the hell can't I just buy XP? And anyone who believes MS is complying with EU requests without any hassle is crazy. MS had a problem with programs like Trillian that connected to MS Messenger. A program which I hate, I disable, but end up always having to uninstall because somehow if you leave it on your PC, it will put itself in your starup folder whenever it feels like it. I can only make a guess, but my guess is MS's documentation is 1. crappy and 2. very incomplete. Competition ain't bad, but shoving software down my throat is. I could run Linux, and MS could open up a bit and allow some other companies to make a little money. It's not like they're hurting...

So why don't you gripe at GM, Ford or Toyota for putting a radio in your car? I mean how is that fair to the aftermarket stereo vendors?

Nothing about outlook express or messenger force you to use them. Unless you deliberately open one you have essentially already purchased Windows without them.

The MS documentation is clearly good enough or the developers wouldn't have written anything. Why is it the documentation is good enough for MS engineers but not 3rd party vendors? Either the 3rd party vendors (or court appointed 'experts') are incredibly stupid compared to MS developers or the EU courts are simply trying to find a way to prop up their sagging economies with US money.

The whole EU thing is BS and at the end of the day it's going to cost YOU money.

 

[corkyg]

Originally posted by: Smilin

The whole EU thing is BS and at the end of the day it's going to cost YOU money.

You got that right! I really don't like socialism.

 

[DaveSimmons]

MS new hires tasked to maintain the server code can ask their co-workers to explain the non-obvious parts, and they can spend amounts of time getting up to speed that are impractical for others outside the company.

They also don't need to understand all of the code and its behavior in order to change a small, well-defined aspect of it, or more likely to extend it by adding some new feature or option.

There are also legal dangers for competitors looking at the source code, since it is not being licensed it's just made availabler for reading as a substitute for usable documentation.

Any company that accepts the offer to read the source must be able to prove at any time in the future that they didn't actually use any of the copyrighted code in their own product.

Compare this to an API, protocol or file format definition where documentation is enough to implement it and there is no danger of contaminating your own code by reading the documentation.

 

[QueBert]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: QueBert

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: Cruise51
Unless any of you have seen the documentation Microsoft has provided, how can you confirm or deny it is of quality and usefullness? Volume can not guarentee quality.

They provided the source code.

That's as documented as it gets!

Code is typically horrible documentation.

I don't hate MS, and I don't know anything about the EU. Here's what I do know about M$

I buy their OS, and they shove software down my throat. I don't like MS Messenger, I don't like Media Player, I don't like Outlook Express. Why the hell can't I just buy XP? And anyone who believes MS is complying with EU requests without any hassle is crazy. MS had a problem with programs like Trillian that connected to MS Messenger. A program which I hate, I disable, but end up always having to uninstall because somehow if you leave it on your PC, it will put itself in your starup folder whenever it feels like it. I can only make a guess, but my guess is MS's documentation is 1. crappy and 2. very incomplete. Competition ain't bad, but shoving software down my throat is. I could run Linux, and MS could open up a bit and allow some other companies to make a little money. It's not like they're hurting...

So why don't you gripe at GM, Ford or Toyota for putting a radio in your car? I mean how is that fair to the aftermarket stereo vendors?

Nothing about outlook express or messenger force you to use them. Unless you deliberately open one you have essentially already purchased Windows without them.

The MS documentation is clearly good enough or the developers wouldn't have written anything. Why is it the documentation is good enough for MS engineers but not 3rd party vendors? Either the 3rd party vendors (or court appointed 'experts') are incredibly stupid compared to MS developers or the EU courts are simply trying to find a way to prop up their sagging economies with US money.

The whole EU thing is BS and at the end of the day it's going to cost YOU money.

Simple, my Ford Taurus stock radio doesn't effect my cars performance. When I install XP (all I want to install..) my system runs slower because of processes in the background I don't need, and programs I don't want like Messenger loading when I boot up my pc. You best believe if my cars performance was effected by the radio I wouldn't have bought the car. Removing all the stuff from my XP I don't like takes a lot of work. I have no option to uninstall IE, well not without a ton of hacking. Removing Messenger is easy, but I've seen it come back, how I don't know. And I've had WMP claim rights to be the default mp3 player when I've NEVER even opened the program! I woulda paid double the current retail for a version of XP totally stripped down. But since they don't offer this (stupid them) I'll just install it, and spend countless hours editing files/registery etc etc etc to rid my box of junk I'll never use.