EU hits MS with noncompliance fine

Post #261,368 by JayMehaffey 7/12/06 11:01:05 AM Reply	EU hits MS with noncompliance fine [link\|http://www.forbes.com/2006/07/12/kroes-microsoft-europe-cx_po_0712autofacescan03.html\|Forbes] Neelie Kroes announced this morning that the EU Commission was fining Microsoft (nasdaq: MSFT - news - people ) $357 million for failing to obey an antitrust order in 2004 to share its program code with rivals. The fine was lower than the maximum possible fine of $2.5 million a day, or around half a billion dollars when backdated to Dec. 15, 2004. After more then a year of putzing around, they have finally decided to hit MS with a big fine for failing to comply with the settlement they came to long ago. This is a big enough fine to get MS's attention, and the the threat to hit them with $3.82 million per day fine shortly if they don't get in compliance will force them to pay attention. Jay
Post #261,373 by Andrew Grygus 7/12/06 11:29:27 AM Reply	But can they comply? The EU wants orderly and meaningful documentation. Do they have any? The anti trust judge in the U.S. is getting pretty pissed by the same problem, "If it takes more people then put as many people on it as it takes!" I've heard that when they teach networking to new programmers they use the Samba code rather than their own because Samba is orderly, commented and documented. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #261,392 by JayMehaffey 7/12/06 1:20:16 PM Reply	Hard to say It's hard to say, partially becuase it depends on how comprehensive and clear they want those APIs to be. If they really want every details of every API, then no, it can't be done. Nobody has that information, and MS couldn't provide it by any means other then making the full code public. But so far MS has not really even tried, instead they have been stalling at every turn. Intentionally delaying and misunderstanding the court orders while trying to cut a deal that doesn't come close to meeting the EUs demands. I'm sure that MS doesn't want to provide full and clear documents for exactly the reason the EU wants them. The ability to manipulate the interface is one of MS's primary weapons. Not just the inside knowledge of how those interfaces work, but breaking non-MS apps by tweaking them. If MS had to clearly document the interfaces, both weapons would be greatly effected. Jay
Post #261,403 by folkert 7/12/06 2:00:47 PM Reply	Those two weapons are exactly the main reason Microsoft IS still up there on the top of the mountain. Just think if Microsoft had 95% of the road builder contracts in the world. They then put in special "add-ons" to allow you access to the road your Govenrment had just built. And they put very basic and unreliable traffic control on even the most complicate road-network. Allowing people to high-jack you car without any repercussions, even without being in the vicinity... I'd have to believe people would be outraged. Also, once they do start to ge a handle on the advanced version of the road-networking protocol, they then change things just a bit every so often your car can't communicate reasonably, because you are using a "competeing but compatible" traffic control accessory... and causes you to become stranded in the middle of this "RoadKill Game", when you get a "notice" that IF you agree to a terribly restrictive license to drive and promise to buy the "Real" accessory they will at least let you off the road... and then install the "Competitive upgrade version" along with this in car music player that only plays certain music formats that you can't improve or change. I hope you understand where I am going with this. In the end, because people understand cars and are typically not afraid to use them and understand that they are typically a good vehicle (at least when new) that any kind of bullshit like this would cease to exist. Where it not for people being dumb about using computers and afraid of actually learning about them, and fully understanding how and why... I'd have to think that not much of these shenanigans would even be happening. -- [link\|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net\|greg], [link\|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry\|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ *i_wethey* Freedom is not FREE. Yeah, but 10s of Trillions of US Dollars? SELECT * FROM scog WHERE ethics > 0; 0 rows returned.
Post #261,404 by Andrew Grygus 7/12/06 2:01:20 PM Reply	Microsoft offered the source code . . . . . and the EU rightly rejected that offer. First, open source developers could not accept the license; second, anyone who saw that source code would be forever tainted and open to lawsuits. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #261,399 by folkert 7/12/06 1:45:13 PM Reply	A friend of Jeremy Allison's used to work for MS... I am under the impression he was the one that found that out. Jeremy and the friend didn't know each other until a few years after the friend left MS. I any case, the reason Samba's Code is so well Documented... and being bug for bug compliant, is that when you are doing packet captures of everything during a connection and communication test... you get to see everything. Change one thing and watch the interaction, rinse - repeat. It is a mighty fine way to get the info... except that it becomes "blacbox" connection technology, you have to guess very well as to see the proper results on both ends. -- [link\|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net\|greg], [link\|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry\|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ *i_wethey* Freedom is not FREE. Yeah, but 10s of Trillions of US Dollars? SELECT * FROM scog WHERE ethics > 0; 0 rows returned.

Welcome to IWETHEY!