EU slaps Microsoft with Massive $1.35 billion fine

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


Read the 2004 decision then. On pg 6 it is established that 8 years ago Sun sued Microsoft for "reserving to itself information that certain software products for network computing, work group server OS's, need to interoperability fully with MS PC's. This information is necessary to compete viably as a work group server OS system supplier."

If you don't even know why Sun initiated the complaint then you have no business making your ridiculous charges. Other complaints were added over the last 5 years or so.

In 2002 Microsoft released the specs publicly for XP filesharing support. IIRC it was a modified Samba system called CIFS

In Vista, SMB2 replaced it. Microsoft has provided the detailed specs needed for interoperability, including giving it to the open-source Samba group.

Again, I don't see anything right now that is impossible to do for developers. And they're being fined $1.35B for their efforts.

[Kuciwalker]

Asher, read the tech forum please.

[Asher]

So can anyone tell us what documentations MS did not release which warranted a $1.3B fine?

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by Asher

In 2002 Microsoft released the specs publicly for XP filesharing support. IIRC it was a modified Samba system called CIFS

In Vista, SMB2 replaced it. Microsoft has provided the detailed specs needed for interoperability, including giving it to the open-source Samba group.

Again, I don't see anything right now that is impossible to do for developers. And they're being fined $1.35B for their efforts.

I like how in the decision (p208) there's a quote from microsoft executives discussing how they want to lock Oracle and Sun out with some "new protocols" using their server control.

Read pp50-85 of the decision for a complete summary of the initial complaint, MS's response, and why their response is inadequate. There's all sorts of little points in here, like how MS refused to supply dll's to Novell for NDS for NT and rendered their software inoperable on Windows 2000. It mentions the inadequacies of the samba group on p83. My understanding of those pages is that Microsoft used its market position to screw Novell, Sun, and others. The remaining portions of the 300 page decision seem to focus on WMP.

But you cannot just launch tirades at poly posters and expect it to matter. Would be more useful if you addressed the court, since they published a pretty substantial ruling here.

[Asher]

I don't care about the history, we've all moved past that. I'm talking, very explicitly you EUROCOM, in the present.

What're they not providing right now to developers that is worth $1.35B?

[snoopy369]

Given that none of us - yourself included - are experts on this matter, nor have any of us excluding Wiglaf read the ruling, that's not a valid argument. The burden of proof is on yourself at the moment, Asher...

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by Asher
I don't care about the history, we've all moved past that. I'm talking, very explicitly you EUROCOM, in the present.

What're they not providing right now to developers that is worth $1.35B?

Maybe more stuff like this:
(http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/02/21...h-open-source/)

Like Snoopy neither of us is really qualified to make definitive statements on this ruling. I just know enough that your allegations that this is some sort of fixed trial or political witchhunt by judges who do not know how to operate a mouse is beyond retarded.

[Asher]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Given that none of us - yourself included - are experts on this matter, nor have any of us excluding Wiglaf read the ruling, that's not a valid argument. The burden of proof is on yourself at the moment, Asher...

Not really. All of the evidence in all of the articles indicate MS has already supplied all necessary information, eg:

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8V2KVJ00.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_businessweek+exclusives

Microsoft immediately said the issues for which it was fined have been resolved and the company was making its products more open.

So why would the burden of proof be on me when I'm the one maintaining developers have all of the information they need?

The fine is what's absurd here. The EU complained about the licensing fee issue in March last year. MS went back and forth with them for quite a bit until they settled in October on new rates that the EU was happy with.

Yet the fee was massive that even pre-dates the EU Complaint from March. Does not compute.

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by Asher

Not really. All of the evidence in all of the articles indicate MS has already supplied all necessary information, eg:

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8V2KVJ00.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_businessweek+exclusives

Microsoft immediately said the issues for which it was fined have been resolved and the company was making its products more open.

So why would the burden of proof be on me when I'm the one maintaining developers have all of the information they need?

The fine is what's absurd here. The EU complained about the licensing fee issue in March last year. MS went back and forth with them for quite a bit until they settled in October on new rates that the EU was happy with.

Yet the fee was massive that even pre-dates the EU Complaint from March. Does not compute.

Right, I think the main complaint is the interoperability requirements of the 2004 decision that went ignored. Until last week, when they apparently woke up and realized they were going to get fined for it.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
I just know enough that your allegations that this is some sort of fixed trial or political witchhunt by judges who do not know how to operate a mouse is beyond retarded.

If you think there's nothing political about this, you are naive.

And it's not a witchhunt BY judges, it's a witchhunt BY Microsoft competitors which have clear motivation.

Caught in the crossfire are the judges and EU Commission. Which are not exactly software engineers...The EU Commission -- which is the one doing all of the fining and demands -- are basically a generic legislative body. It's no different than having the US Congress make technical demands, with people like Ted "Series of Tubes" Stevens.

This is not far out there. Politicians and judges are not software engineers or computer scientists, they're just people who listen to other people ***** then draft legislation to shut them up.

[Jon Miller]

The 1.35b is to make up past opportunities?

JM

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Right, I think the main complaint is the interoperability requirements of the 2004 decision that went ignored. Until last week, when they apparently woke up and realized they were going to get fined for it.

You're confusing issues yet again.

The announcement last week has nothing to do with this, it's independent of any anti-trust actions of legislations. The fact that the fine is only up to and including October 21st in particular should've tipped you off on that, comrade.

[Wiglaf]

Probably wanted to avoid getting the book thrown at them. Didn't work

Also, you're claiming there is political motivation here. What is it? I doubt these companies can exert more power on the commission or the judiciary than Microsoft can. I'm right here, you are wrong

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Probably wanted to avoid getting the book thrown at them. Didn't work

Also, you're claiming there is political motivation here. What is it? I doubt these companies can exert more power on the commission or the judiciary than Microsoft can. I'm right here, you are wrong

Many of the plaintiffs are European companies (eg, SuSE) or companies with massive corporate presence in Europe that MS doesn't (Sun, IBM).

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Asher

Not really. All of the evidence in all of the articles indicate MS has already supplied all necessary information, eg:

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8V2KVJ00.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_businessweek+exclusives

Microsoft immediately said the issues for which it was fined have been resolved and the company was making its products more open.

So why would the burden of proof be on me when I'm the one maintaining developers have all of the information they need?

The fine is what's absurd here. The EU complained about the licensing fee issue in March last year. MS went back and forth with them for quite a bit until they settled in October on new rates that the EU was happy with.

Yet the fee was massive that even pre-dates the EU Complaint from March. Does not compute.

MS would claim that, it's called their legal argument However, a group of legal experts called 'judges' ruled otherwise.

The burden of proof is on the EU in the court case. In these forums, as you're saying 'EU experts wrong', the burden of proof is on you (as you're arguing against the expert).