PDA

View Full Version : Microsoft files appeal against EU antitrust ruling on open source code



earobinson
September 8th, 2005, 03:15 PM
Microsoft files appeal against EU antitrust ruling on open source code
BRUSSELS, Belgium -- Microsoft Corp. has filed a second appeal against a European Union ruling ordering it to share code with open-source software companies, officials said Wednesday.

The company's spokesman Tom Brookes said the new appeal before the EU's second-highest court comes in the wake of a June agreement with the EU head office to let the courts decide the source code issue.

He said Microsoft planned to defend its view that the interoperability protocols -- server software which helps Windows-powered computers communicate with other computers and software -- are Microsoft's intellectual property and should not be shared or given away for free.

"We are taking this step so the court can begin its review now of this issue given its far-reaching implications for the protection of our intellectual property rights around the world," said Brookes.

EU spokesman Jonathan Todd said Microsoft's interoperability protocols were not eligible for intellectual property protection and should be able to circulate among open-source companies -- so called because their underlying code is freely shared -- according to their usual business licenses.

However, the EU's executive Commission said it believed the matter would be settled if the Luxembourg-based Court of First Instance upholds the March 2004 ruling against the company.

A date has not yet been set for the first appeal against the EU's order for Microsoft to pay 497 million euro (US$620 million), Europe's largest ever antitrust fine.

The court can decide to treat Microsoft's latest filing on Aug. 10 as a separate case or join it into the appeal filed last year.

When asked if the Commission knew Microsoft had planned to file another appeal, Todd said the EU was aware that Microsoft did not agree with its position on sharing the protocols with open-source firms.

"If they do not share our point of view, they are of course free to go back to the court if they want to, which is what they've done," he said.

The EU claimed the software giant had abusively wielded its Windows software domination to lock competitors out of the market. It ordered Microsoft to sell a version of its Windows software without Media Player and compelled it to share technology with competitors that make server software so their products can better communicate with Windows-powered computers. (AP)

September 7, 2005


Original source: http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/business/news/20050907p2g00m0bu034000c.html

That would be pretty cool cuz it would let people like the gaim dev team actualy connect to msn without all the reverce engenearing.

KingBahamut
September 8th, 2005, 03:57 PM
Hmmmm....well now heres a fine kettle of fish.

Honestly though, I dont see where it can be fought, I was under the impression that the original decision went all the way up the chain already in the EU courts. This seems amazingly to me like the appeals that Scott Peterson gets before they inject him.

M$ is trying to roll it out as far as they can till they have no choice. It would be nice to see them actually get tagged for this and have to pay out the money and show the source.

GeneralZod
September 8th, 2005, 04:35 PM
M$ is trying to roll it out as far as they can till they have no choice. It would be nice to see them actually get tagged for this and have to pay out the money and show the source.

It's important to note that (as far as I'm aware) Microsoft are not obligated in any way to share source code with anyone; it is merely the descriptions of formats and protocols that are required.

phen
September 8th, 2005, 05:16 PM
that would make sense!

but i don't fully understand the whole thing.

I am just looking for an example...... whats about -let's say- DVD recording: are the +/-R processes open? Didn't several companies design these processes to sell dvd-recorder? It is nearly the same, isn't it? do they have to tell about their technique to other companies?

GeneralZod
September 8th, 2005, 05:22 PM
It is nearly the same, isn't it? do they have to tell about their technique to other companies?

I have no idea whether the specifications for reading/ writing to DVD-R's is open or not, I'm afraid, but the major reason why Microsoft is a special case is because they have legally been found to be a Monopoly, and are subject to a few additional regulations that non-Monopolies don't have to worry about.

N'Jal
September 8th, 2005, 06:39 PM
I thought a monopoly was illegal anyway?

earobinson
September 8th, 2005, 07:16 PM
to have a monopoly is not illegal as far as i know, but to prevent competition from entering the market is. So MS is geting in trouble for that. If you are a manopoly you can stop others from entering the competition, It would be like if you needed a password to drive on the road and only ford had it and would not shair it, that stops competition.

KingBahamut
September 8th, 2005, 07:35 PM
If we follow the wording of the Sherman Antitrust act, it is in fact illegal to be a Monoploy, save being granted such a status from a higher authority, commonly a Goverment or Ruling body. For a corporate company to become a monoploy without such sanctioning, and willfully attempt to perpetuate such a status, it then comes under Antitrust and is prosecuteable for its means in pushing this status.

Microsoft is clearly has been guilty of this, ergo , an Illegal monopoly and therefore able to be prosecuted on whatever level nesssecary for it to stop its business practices.

If you are a corporation involved in a business that is a cornerstone business, one where you are the only one, this would be classified as a natural monopoly and not liable for prosecution via the jurisprudential element.

weekend warrior
September 8th, 2005, 07:39 PM
Originally Posted by earobinson
to have a monopoly is not illegal as far as i know
What? It certainly is illegal in countries that have anti-monopoly or antitrust laws! Just as a random example here is a very basic essay on Anti-monopoly laws in Turkey, Greece, and Italy, and Their Enforcement (http://facweb.furman.edu/~jpitts/36r-anti%20monopoly%20laws.htm).

GeneralZod
September 8th, 2005, 07:41 PM
to have a monopoly is not illegal as far as i know, but to prevent competition from entering the market is. So MS is geting in trouble for that. If you are a manopoly you can stop others from entering the competition, It would be like if you needed a password to drive on the road and only ford had it and would not shair it, that stops competition.

It's also illegal for a Monopoly to leverage their monopoly in one area to gain one in another. Microsoft have achieved this to an extent with media - most sites now offer content in WMV format (closed and proprietary) not because of any immense technical advantage over, say, xvid, but because they know that 90% of machines can play WMV and not xvid.

weekend warrior
September 8th, 2005, 07:50 PM
As for MS in the EU - bring'em on! The more MS drags this out the more of a publicity black-eye they get. European institutions are moving en masse to linux. The 2,460 desktop computers (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Linux_installed_on_2%2C460_desktop_computers_in_It alian_schools) in Bolzano, Italy only being the latest example and certainly not the last.

If MS wants to speed up the process, by all means! :-P

Jussi Kukkonen
September 8th, 2005, 08:21 PM
What? It certainly is illegal in countries that have anti-monopoly or antitrust laws! Just as a random example here is a very basic essay on Anti-monopoly laws in Turkey, Greece, and Italy, and Their Enforcement (http://facweb.furman.edu/~jpitts/36r-anti%20monopoly%20laws.htm).

I think you are wrong. Obtaining a monopoly in itself is not illegal (why punish a company that is very good at what it does), monopolies just have additional rules they have to follow... The link you posted says the same thing actually:

Anti-monopoly or antitrust laws, mainly work against an imbalance of competition in a free market economy. In other words, they work against the abuse of dominant position or a situation of economic power held by a firm, which allows it to hinder effective competition in the relevant market.

weekend warrior
September 8th, 2005, 08:32 PM
It's a matter of sticky legal interpretation. But the rub of it is, monopolies, nearly by definition - hinder competition and thus at some point run afoul of the laws. Then their activities become illegal. That's the problem. Show me a monopoly that doesn't end up abusing almost by default its position in one way or another.