FT.com / By industry / IT – Microsoft called to account on 2004 ruling — Apparently Micosoft is again in deep doo-doo in Europe. There goes the Christmas party!
In one of the reports he has submitted to the regulator in recent weeks, Prof Barrett states bluntly that Microsoft’s disclosure of technical information to rival companies was inadequate: “Any programmer or programming team seeking to use the technical documentation for a real development exercise would be wholly and completely unable to proceed on the basis of the documentation.” He added that the documentation was “totally unfit” for its purpose.
Microsoft had therefore failed to implement one of the central elements of the Commission’s 2004 decision — the order to license information about the workings of its Windows operating system to rival groups, to ensure that their server systems run smoothly with Windows-driven computers.
It was Prof Barrett’s assessment that tipped the Commission towards issuing an unprecedented fourth “statement of objections”, the formal charge sheet alleging an antitrust abuse.
Those in the Microsoft camp will argue that they will be hindered if they must reveal company secrets in order to do bissines in Europe. In reality everyone in Europe must reveal these secrets, and Microsoft will only be forced to play on level ground with the competition. Microsoft will not mention this. Nor will they mention that they were getting away with their noncompliance until it became clear that they were sitting on known bugs and security flaws that resulted in the most damaging virus and spyware outbreaks in the history in the internet. The thinking in European courts lately, is that if Microsoft is slow to fix known problems others should be given a chance to fix things for them. And I must agree.
There’s an alternative to everything Microsoft makes. It’s not as if you can’t use some other stuff. What is the point of all of this? They issued a statement of objections. Just using something else is too simple. It sounds like campus politics. If you make something or sell something, the people against making and selling stuff get all upset and issue statements of objection. Don’t forget to buy your mandatory Microsoft quota this month.
The problem with using alternatives to Microsoft is the “Diodic” strategies that make moving to MS products a 1-way street. The filters are there for migration into, but not out of MS products. Everyone licenses their interfaces to MS, but try implementing their interfaces on a competitive OS. the education is there for implementing fapps or Windows, but not for imlementing the same apps to anything else.
In the US version of “AntiTrust” the Chariman complained that MS was being judged by people who simply did not understand how software works. Unfortunately, the DOJ also didn’t understand how the law works well enough either – as MS got off too easy.
Is that picture of Bill Gates or the dearly departed Rodney Dangerfield?
/I keed, I keed!!!
Catch up guys. This isn’t about competition, this is about Europe giving the evil eye to everything M$.
From what I know about the company, they spend little on development in Europe. In turn, Europe rakes M$ over the coals on everything. To contrast this, no one in Europe has the balls to use the information they’re asking for to rip off Windows.
Europe just wants a larger cut of the pie. Since they can’t get away with raising taxes on one company, they’re trying to get it through the legal system.
James
Interesting observation. You missed the most important aspect of this case though. The European Union is sovereign It does not answer to Bush or any other American. It gets to set its own laws and regulations, which they have done. If M$ want to do business there they must obey the laws of the land.
The alternative would be to not do business in Europe and run the chance that their Windows OS would be truly become free open source. It must hurt to find out that there are governments in this world not totally run by businesses.
How sad we’ve become as Human Beings (not commenting on Law, commenting on the state of humanity in general)… We cry foul when we can’t have free music… We cry Rape when we can’t have the best software for free… We force innovators to give us what we want instead of making something new and possibly better ourselves… I guess the age of innovation is truly dead… Time was, when you wanted something you built it, you didn’t cry that it was your right to HAVE IT because you WANT IT.
Simply said… If you want your mp3(s) for free, buy a guitar and learn to play. If you want software for free, read a book and build it. STUPID!
Sad Shame…