Are the EU Rules for Microsoft Reasonable?

[Ohmer]

Record EU Fine for Microsoft (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8V2S42O8&show_article=1)

I know there is already a thread about this. I want to have a more reasoned discussion. I completely agree that Microsoft broke the rules and they are being fined because of it. My real question is this:

Should dominating the market require you to do things to help your competitors?

As I understand it, the EU is saying that Microsoft must provide information about its OS so that rival companies can develop software that directly competes with Microsoft software. It seems very weird to me to force a private company to do that. If they didn't dominate the PC OS market, this would be seen as completely unreasonable.

I'm trying to think of another industry where this kind of thing has happened and I really can't. I would be interested in other examples.

[drkitten]

I'm trying to think of another industry where this kind of thing has happened and I really can't. I would be interested in other examples.

Actually, this kind of monopolistic abuse is/was quite common in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which is where most of the anti-trust legislation came from. It hasn't been seen more recently precisely because the regulators exist and are sensitive to this kind of concerns nowadays.

Example: railroad car pooling, where railroads were required to make their unused cars available to competitors, or more generally mandatory rights of way, where I could force you to allow me to run my trains on your track instead of having to build my own track to an area where you have a monopoly. More recently, local telcos have been required to allow competitors to connect to "their" wires instead of running a whole new set of copper to each house.

[Nick Bogaerts]

Record EU Fine for Microsoft (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8V2S42O8&show_article=1)As I understand it, the EU is saying that Microsoft must provide information about its OS so that rival companies can develop software that directly competes with Microsoft software. It seems very weird to me to force a private company to do that. If they didn't dominate the PC OS market, this would be seen as completely unreasonable.

Absolutely. Microsoft have a monopoly in Operating Systems. There's nothing wrong with that from a *legal* point of view. What they cannot do, however, is use their dominance in one field as leverage against competition in a different, related field.

That is, Microsoft's bundling of the Media Player with Windows provided them with an unfair advantage over Real, and their bundling and dumping of a rebranded Spyglass as Internet Explorer gave them an unfair advantage over Netscape.

In both cases, it proved lethal for the innovators, and the consumer suffered--between the effective demise of Netscape and the rise of Firefox, the field of web browsers, dominated by Microsoft alone, was effectively stagnant. We've lost at least five year's worth of innovation due to that.

[tsg]

In addition to what others have said...

Should dominating the market require you to do things to help your competitors?

It isn't so much about helping competitors as leveling the playing field. The real motivation for it is that competition is good for the consumer.

As I understand it, the EU is saying that Microsoft must provide information about its OS so that rival companies can develop software that directly competes with Microsoft software. It seems very weird to me to force a private company to do that. If they didn't dominate the PC OS market, this would be seen as completely unreasonable.

That is true. But if Microsoft didn't dominate the PC OS market, they wouldn't have an unfair advantage in the application market.

[Ohmer]

Example: railroad car pooling, where railroads were required to make their unused cars available to competitors, or more generally mandatory rights of way, where I could force you to allow me to run my trains on your track instead of having to build my own track to an area where you have a monopoly. More recently, local telcos have been required to allow competitors to connect to "their" wires instead of running a whole new set of copper to each house.

Thanks. This is exactly what I couldn't think of. Forcing the 800lb gorilla to give up some of it's gain is not unprecedented and in general worked out well for the consumer.

What I think is interesting is that a company like Apple who has complete control of the hardware and software its sells is held to a different standard because they have such a small market share. No one is demanding that Apple sell a machine without itunes, iphoto, ietc so that other companies can have the opportunity to sell similar products. How big does Apple have to get for this to no longer be "fair".

[drkitten]

What I think is interesting is that a company like Apple who has complete control of the hardware and software its sells is held to a different standard because they have such a small market share. No one is demanding that Apple sell a machine without itunes, iphoto, ietc so that other companies can have the opportunity to sell similar products. How big does Apple have to get for this to no longer be "fair".

Actually, that's not true -- complaints have been filed against Apple, but they've mostly been dismissed, because they've not been provable. And it's not simple "size" that's the issue. It's the abuse of size; Microsoft is using its control of one part of the market to establish control of others. I.e. if you don't use OUR browser, you can't use OUR operating system. Apple has never acted to preven other people from installing third-party music players on its computers, and so the fact that iTunes has become a de-facto standard is strictly due to merits and not to undue intimidation on Apple's part.

[Gazpacho]

The reasonableness of the EC's position can be judged from all the shots Microsoft fired in the dark trying to hit the target that the EC was telling it to hit. Such as offering source code at no charge, and offering support for the source code at no charge.

It can be judged further by the farce in which an advisor to the EC, whose credential is "hacker," was told to use Microsoft's documentation to clone the server protocols. He gave up after no more than 14 hours and said it couldn't be done. (People like that don't get hired at Microsoft.)

And further by the EC antitrust division's decision to judge the "innovativeness" of Microsoft's patents, instead of deferring to existing procedures for invalidating a patent.

And further by the absence of any demand for Windows XP N, the version without Media Player.

It can be judged further still by the fact that the new "rules" (whatever they are) are being applied to Microsoft, and not to Sun, or Oracle, or RealNetworks, or IBM.

[Gazpacho]

I.e. if you don't use OUR browser, you can't use OUR operating system. Apple has never acted to preven other people from installing third-party music players on its computers
Microsoft has never done either of these.

[Gazpacho]

Oh, let me tell you a little story from when I worked at RealNetworks (on the RealArcade team).

One day I was in a status meeting with a few other developers and a test manager. The subject of Real's legal dispute with Microsoft came up, and one of the developers asked what the dispute was about.

The test manager laughed and said "Microsoft had the audacity to play media files! Only Real is supposed to be able to do that."

Yeah, even inside Real it's a joke.

[drkitten]

Microsoft has never done either of these.

This is simply untrue; read the US DOJ reports.

[Gazpacho]

This is simply untrue; read the US DOJ reports.
I'm very familiar with the DOJ litigation. Microsoft has never prevented anyone from installing a browser other than IE or a media player other than WMP on Windows.

[KoihimeNakamura]

I should note that IE7 asserts it's dominance even after told not to.

[Gazpacho]

Care to be specific?

[Tumblehome]

I don't know about the legalities, but from a strictly logical view, an operating system (which Microsoft sells Windows as) doesn't need a media player and internet browser to run the computer.

[El Greco]

As I understand it, the EU is saying that Microsoft must provide information about its OS so that rival companies can develop software that directly competes with Microsoft software.

I don't understand the specifics of this. Anyone know what kind of information has MS been holding back and exactly what kind of advantages that information gave to which MS software ?

Also, what is the difference in relevant anti-monopoly legislation between the US & EU ?

Yes, I know I could probably Google all of the above...

[JonnyFive]

Apple has never acted to preven other people from installing third-party music players on its computers, and so the fact that iTunes has become a de-facto standard is strictly due to merits and not to undue intimidation on Apple's part.

Although, to be fair, Apple's iTunes does use a proprietary format that makes it a massive pain in the ass to play the songs you buy on non-iPod music players, or burn them to MP3 CDs for the car (yes, it does let you burn audio CDs, which are for tools that like to only have 10 - 15 songs per CD).

iTunes is a great piece of software in many ways (more specifically, its music store is great), but Apple certainly uses its clout to influence consumer behavior. Granted, I think this is more of a DRM issue than anything else, but Apple could do a lot more to make playing its files possible on non-Apple hardware.

They probably won't, because they want to sell iPods just like Microsoft wants to sell operating systems.

[El Greco]

Although, to be fair, Apple's iTunes does use a proprietary format that makes it a massive pain in the ass to play the songs you buy on non-iPod music players, or burn them to MP3 CDs for the car (yes, it does let you burn audio CDs, which are for tools that like to only have 10 - 15 songs per CD).

iTunes is a great piece of software in many ways (more specifically, its music store is great), but Apple certainly uses its clout to influence consumer behavior. Granted, I think this is more of a DRM issue than anything else, but Apple could do a lot more to make playing its files possible on non-Apple hardware.

They probably won't, because they want to sell iPods just like Microsoft wants to sell operating systems.

And that's why those of us who made the mistake of buying an iPod now use Rockbox to solve most of these problems.

[rwguinn]

I'm very familiar with the DOJ litigation. Microsoft has never prevented anyone from installing a browser other than IE or a media player other than WMP on Windows.

I use Firefox, Netscape, and IE on my windoze machine. No problems at all;
I have Real, Winamp, Magix, NERO, and have used ROXIO and numerous others on my Windows machine--from Win 95 all the way to XP (the only one I couldn't get 3rd party for was Win XP64)
So where's the leverage? Where is the force? WHAT DAMN MONOPOLY?
The fact that MS provides these things with the purchase of Windows simply makes them cheaper--you don't have to pay an outrageous price for basic stuff. The competitors object to that, and the EU courts are in their pockets? Who knows.

[JonnyFive]

And that's why those of us who made the mistake of buying an iPod now use Rockbox to solve most of these problems.

Neat.

I wish the solutions for burning the iTunes BS format to MP3 so I can put it on my car mix CDs was a little simpler though. I've used a few programs to do it, but they're all pretty picky and sensitive to iTunes versions.

[tsg]

I use Firefox, Netscape, and IE on my windoze machine. No problems at all;
I have Real, Winamp, Magix, NERO, and have used ROXIO and numerous others on my Windows machine--from Win 95 all the way to XP (the only one I couldn't get 3rd party for was Win XP64)
So where's the leverage? Where is the force? WHAT DAMN MONOPOLY?
The fact that MS provides these things with the purchase of Windows simply makes them cheaper--you don't have to pay an outrageous price for basic stuff. The competitors object to that, and the EU courts are in their pockets? Who knows.

The leverage is in the fact that a) you get IE with Windows where Microsoft does have a monopoly making it unnecessary for most people to get another browser and b) you can't uninstall it.

In order to understand why this is a problem you have to go back to the browser war and really understand what it was about. It wasn't about making IE a standard, it was about protecting the monopoly on the operating system. Briefly, Netscape was on the verge of producing a platform that would make it possible for people to write applications that could be run on any OS. Microsoft didn't like that because it was a solution to the "chicken-egg" problem as one judge so eloquently put it: people won't use an OS until there are sufficient applications to run on it and software developers won't write applications for an OS until there sufficient people using it. Microsoft benefits from this problem and so it was in their best interests to make sure it didn't get solved. Bundling IE with Windows was all about making Netscape unnecessary so they couldn't get their OS-independent platform in general use. In short, they used their dominance in the marketplace to quash competition which is what anti-trust laws are all about.

[El Greco]

But what does all this have to do with withholding information ?

[rwguinn]

The leverage is in the fact that a) you get IE with Windows where Microsoft does have a monopoly making it unnecessary for most people to get another browser and b) you can't uninstall it.

In order to understand why this is a problem you have to go back to the browser war and really understand what it was about. It wasn't about making IE a standard, it was about protecting the monopoly on the operating system. Briefly, Netscape was on the verge of producing a platform that would make it possible for people to write applications that could be run on any OS. Microsoft didn't like that because it was a solution to the "chicken-egg" problem as one judge so eloquently put it: people won't use an OS until there are sufficient applications to run on it and software developers won't write applications for an OS until there sufficient people using it. Microsoft benefits from this problem and so it was in their best interests to make sure it didn't get solved. Bundling IE with Windows was all about making Netscape unnecessary so they couldn't get their OS-independent platform in general use. In short, they used their dominance in the marketplace to quash competition which is what anti-trust laws are all about.
So, what you're saying here, is that if there is no market for a product, and somebody wants to make the product anyway, then the courts are justified in forcing the market into being?

'cuz that's what it sounds like to me.

[tsg]

But what does all this have to do with withholding information ?

I don't know any of the details, so this is all pure speculation, but it probably has to do with the OS API. For non-programmers, the API (Application Programming Interface) is a set of function calls that give an application access to the Operating System. The whole point of an Operating System is so that application writers don't have to write the code to control the hardware (eg, monitors, printers, disk drives, etc.) which would require a version (or drivers) for each piece of hardware it will run on. In order to use the OS, the application writers need to know how to access the OS functions and that is done through the publishing of an API.

Ideally, an OS manufacturer wants their API to be as comprehensive as possible so that application writers will use it and write software for it. In the case of Microsoft, who is also an application writer, opening up the API on the OS makes it easier for the competition in the application market. Knowing that Microsoft doesn't play well with others, it wouldn't surprise me at all to find out the API they give to other application developers is drastically different from what they use in, say, Microsoft Word.

[El Greco]

If this is what it's all about, then it should be very easy to confirm it. All one needs to do is find calls to undocumented OS interfaces from within some MS app. And those functions should have to be really powerful in order to handicap those who don't have access to them.

I suspect there's more to it.

[Nick Bogaerts]

I think the FSFE (http://www.fsfeurope.org/)'s Georg Greve put it vey well in an article on Groklaw (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070923170905803):

Antitrust law is not about having large market shares. Antitrust law says nothing about offering a product and gaining monopolies. As long as there is no distortion of competition in neighboring markets, this is legitimate.

What antitrust law cares about in this context is leveraging monopolies of one market into another through abusive practices. The Commission found Microsoft employing two abusive practices: bundling and the deliberate obstruction of interoperability.

Horatio Gutierrez of Microsoft is quoted asking "If Microsoft can't bundle an audio player with Windows, why can Nokia bundle a camera with a phone?" -- the answer seems obvious.

It is questionable whether Nokia has 95% market share in mobile phones, but even if that were the case: There is currently no separate market for mobile phone add-on cameras, so there is no neighboring market to be be distorted by monopoly abuse.

If Nokia had 95% domination and if there were such a market, Nokia might find itself in conflict with antitrust authorities if it took active steps to ensure that a) all its phones always came with the camera included and there is no way to buy the phone separately; b) removal of the camera would be very difficult for a normal user and potentially end up damaging the phone; c) the phone would be built in ways to make sure cameras of other vendors would not work and it would be impossible to buy both together.

Microsoft was found doing all of the above with its media player.


The second abusive practice the Commission found Microsoft guilty of is the deliberate obstruction of interoperability, generally achieved through arbitrary and willful modification of Open Standards. This makes it impossible for competitors to write interoperable software. This is to the detriment of customers, who find themselves locked into the products of one vendor, the antithesis of competition.

Microsoft is comparatively silent on this charge and for good reasons. Vendor lock-in is precisely what public administrations around the world are concerned about. It is a driving force behind the growing momentum on Open Standards, and Microsoft's refusal to end the obstruction might not go down too well.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Let me confirm what tsig said.

I've been off and on reading about the API and in places it's horribly documented. There are persistant rumours that the API is also incomplete..

re rwguinn: No, Microsoft used IE to stop Netscape from developing their market.

[KoihimeNakamura]

If this is what it's all about, then it should be very easy to confirm it. All one needs to do is find calls to undocumented OS interfaces from within some MS app. And those functions should have to be really powerful in order to handicap those who don't have access to them.

I suspect there's more to it.

Reverse engineering software is illegal. So is decompiling. (I note though that Wine and Cedega persistantly have missing API calls.)

[rwguinn]

I think the FSFE (http://www.fsfeurope.org/)'s Georg Greve put it vey well in an article on Groklaw (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070923170905803):
... c) the phone would be built in ways to make sure cameras of other vendors would not work and it would be impossible to buy both together.

is one of them there damned lies.
Windoze works perfectly well with any other browser and/or media player that the companies making them saw fit to make compatable with the OS.

And if I don't want the OS, there is a cute little command in DOS,as well as any number of disk utilities..:
Format C:

[rwguinn]

Let me confirm what tsig said.

I've been off and on reading about the API and in places it's horribly documented. There are persistant rumours that the API is also incomplete..

re rwguinn: No, Microsoft used IE to stop Netscape from developing their market.
What market?
Netscape as a browser worked quite well-and they gave it away because they couldn't sell it?
If I have a perfectly good Ford, why should the courts try to force me to accept a Chevy?

Convince me, folks--I'm not a MS fan, but it seems that these laws and rules are aimed at enabling something other than competition. Share the wealth? Socialism--its agin' the law to be better than somebody else? What?

[tsg]

If this is what it's all about, then it should be very easy to confirm it. All one needs to do is find calls to undocumented OS interfaces from within some MS app. And those functions should have to be really powerful in order to handicap those who don't have access to them.

Without the source code to the apps in question, all you can really find out is that they are there, which doesn't give you the information you need to use them. I don't think it's in doubt whether or not they did it.

I suspect there's more to it.

I'm sure there is.

[tsg]

So, what you're saying here, is that if there is no market for a product, and somebody wants to make the product anyway, then the courts are justified in forcing the market into being?

No.

'cuz that's what it sounds like to me.

I have no idea why.

[El Greco]

BTW, I really love how many people think that EU is a big, happy socialistic playground :D

[tsg]

What market?
Netscape as a browser worked quite well-and they gave it away because they couldn't sell it?

No.

If I have a perfectly good Ford, why should the courts try to force me to accept a Chevy?

The courts are only trying to make it so you have a choice between a Ford and a Chevy. To make the analogy closer to what is really happening, if Ford built all the roadways, the courts are saying that they can't prevent Chevy from making cars by withholding the information necessary to do it. Nobody's trying to make you buy a Chevy. They're only trying to make sure you have the choice. If Chevy fails because their cars suck, so be it. Chevy failing because Ford makes it impossible for them to compete by leveraging their monopoly in a neighboring market is what they are trying to prevent.

[Ohmer]

If this is what it's all about, then it should be very easy to confirm it. All one needs to do is find calls to undocumented OS interfaces from within some MS app. And those functions should have to be really powerful in order to handicap those who don't have access to them.

I suspect there's more to it.

In support of what Nick Bogaerts said I can give you an example I am familiar with. Imap is a set of standards that allows an email client to talk to an email server. It is a published standard with a very specific set of rules.

Microsoft produces a client (Outlook) and a server (Exchange) that they say uses the imap protocol. The problem is that they implement some features so they do not quite follow the published standard. Since it wrong on both Outlook and Exchange, it no problem if you are using Outlook to connect to an Exchange server. If you are using Outlook to connect a compliant imap server, the feature doesn’t quite work because Microsoft did not follow the standard. The slimy part is that Microsoft is selling an "imap" client and server that only really works right if you have both. This is "deliberate obstruction of interoperability, generally achieved through arbitrary and willful modification of Open Standards".

I support the compliant imap server where I work. We tell people that they are on their own if they try to use Outlook.

[rwguinn]

No.



The courts are only trying to make it so you have a choice between a Ford and a Chevy. To make the analogy closer to what is really happening, if Ford built all the roadways, the courts are saying that they can't prevent Chevy from making cars by withholding the information necessary to do it. Nobody's trying to make you buy a Chevy. They're only trying to make sure you have the choice. If Chevy fails because their cars suck, so be it. Chevy failing because Ford makes it impossible for them to compete by leveraging their monopoly in a neighboring market is what they are trying to prevent.

So, If I invent a device that everybody wants, and hold a patent and copyrite on it, and Joe doesn't like my device, but wants a different one that does the same thing, the Courrts are obligated to invalidate my patents and copyrites, so that there can be a competitor.
I see.
I like it. I'm going after Intel!

[rwguinn]

In support of what Nick Bogaerts said I can give you an example I am familiar with. Imap is a set of standards that allows an email client to talk to an email server. It is a published standard with a very specific set of rules.

Microsoft produces a client (Outlook) and a server (Exchange) that they say uses the imap protocol. The problem is that they implement some features so they do not quite follow the published standard. Since it wrong on both Outlook and Exchange, it no problem if you are using Outlook to connect to an Exchange server. If you are using Outlook to connect a compliant imap server, the feature doesn’t quite work because Microsoft did not follow the standard. The slimy part is that Microsoft is selling an "imap" client and server that only really works right if you have both. This is "deliberate obstruction of interoperability, generally achieved through arbitrary and willful modification of Open Standards".

I support the compliant imap server where I work. We tell people that they are on their own if they try to use Outlook.
Now, that I can understand and support the reasoning behind.

[tsg]

So, If I invent a device that everybody wants, and hold a patent and copyrite on it, and Joe doesn't like my device, but wants a different one that does the same thing, the Courrts are obligated to invalidate my patents and copyrites, so that there can be a competitor.

No.

[rwguinn]

No.
non answer.

[Ohmer]

I think the FSFE (http://www.fsfeurope.org/)'s Georg Greve put it vey well in an article on Groklaw (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070923170905803):

From my understanding of this, if Apple had 95% of the desktop market, what they are currently doing would be illegal bundling. I just think it's funny that one of Apple's big selling points would be illegal if they would have won the desktop war back in the 80s.

[KoihimeNakamura]

So, If I invent a device that everybody wants, and hold a patent and copyrite on it, and Joe doesn't like my device, but wants a different one that does the same thing, the Courrts are obligated to invalidate my patents and copyrites, so that there can be a competitor.
I see.
I like it. I'm going after Intel!

No.

A more accurate analogy is this:

Let's say we invent maglev lines. Microsoft and Netscape both operate trains. Then Microsoft buys out the lines and changes how they operate, but does not tell anyone, forcing competitors off.

[tsg]

non answer.

Actually, it is. I would elaborate further, but frankly I'm at a complete loss as to how you could interpret what I said the way you did, so I don't even know where to start arguing against your position.

[Segnosaur]

The courts are only trying to make it so you have a choice between a Ford and a Chevy. To make the analogy closer to what is really happening, if Ford built all the roadways, the courts are saying that they can't prevent Chevy from making cars by withholding the information necessary to do it. Nobody's trying to make you buy a Chevy. They're only trying to make sure you have the choice. If Chevy fails because their cars suck, so be it. Chevy failing because Ford makes it impossible for them to compete by leveraging their monopoly in a neighboring market is what they are trying to prevent.

So, If I invent a device that everybody wants, and hold a patent and copyrite on it, and Joe doesn't like my device, but wants a different one that does the same thing, the Courrts are obligated to invalidate my patents and copyrites, so that there can be a competitor.


Not exactly...

If you look at the analogy or example given by tsg, he isn't just talking about the products that "everyone wants". He specifically pointed out that ford "made all the roads", and that it somehow gave them an unfair advantage. He's not saying ford is bad because they made cars that sold well; he's saying ford is bad because somehow the Ford Roadbuilding division was somehow helping Ford crappy car manufacturing division with some inside information.

Of course, the problem with this analogy is that nobody can really imagine what inside information a 'road building' company might have that would be so secret.

So here's a slightly better analogy...

Lets say Ford, Honda, Chrysler, GM, and Toyota all merged into one company. Call it ToFhu. (Short for Toyota, Ford, Honda...)

ToFhu sells cars. In fact, they've done such a good job at it that they've gotten 100% market share (or at least a virtual monopoly). Now, there is nothing at all wrong with that (assuming it was done legally). Perhaps they really do make good cars.

ToFhu also runs service centers where cars can get fixed. Again, nothing wrong with that. But, there is also Joe's Garage, who also wants to fix cars. Now, lets say that ToFhu, in their desire to increase profits, decided to install a hood lock, so that only ToFhu service centers could get at the engine. This means that Joe's garage will be unable to compete fairly with ToFhu. Joe's garage may provide better or cheaper service, but they won't be able to fix Ford engines. And they can't make it up by fixing other types of cars, because (as I've said before) ford has 100% market share.

That's the problem with Microsoft... they are like the super car manufacturer who has 100% market share when it comes to Operating Systems. Again, nothing wrong with that. But if I'm trying to write (for example) a new word processor to compete with Word, I probably won't be as successful as Microsoft. Why? Because, one of the programmers working on M.S. Word can go to one of the programmers working on M.S. Windows and ask "are there any hidden features in the Operating system that I can use to make my program work better"? (That's the equivalent of the "locked hood" on the car.) And I, as an independent programmer, would not have a similar ability to gain such 'inside' information. I'd be stuck with the information that Microsoft decides to publish publically (which may not even be complete, or accurate.)

[El Greco]

In that case, does the US law allow something that the EU law doesn't ?

[rwguinn]

No.

A more accurate analogy is this:

Let's say we invent maglev lines. Microsoft and Netscape both operate trains. Then Microsoft buys out the lines and changes how they operate, but does not tell anyone, forcing competitors off.
You're getting better--
Although that analogy doesn't quite fit the situation...
Now, If Microsoft (in the above hypothetical case) swears that the lines still meet the old standard, you have a case.
But in such a case, they would get their butts justifiably nailed to the wall for something entirely different.
Falsly stating that you meet a standard, or that your meeting such a standard will cause your device to work properly, when in fact that is totally wrong is a case of fraud, false advertising, and the like.
The appropriate penalty is complete refunds, reparations, withdrawal of such claims, public admission of the guilt, and a fine--which can be very large.
But part of the penalty cannot be the revealing of propriatary information to competitors, or the negation of intellectual property rights

[Almo]

I'm very familiar with the DOJ litigation. Microsoft has never prevented anyone from installing a browser other than IE or a media player other than WMP on Windows.

What about when they charged Gateway extra money for each Win98 license because they refused to use IE on their corporate intranet?

[Rasmus]

But part of the penalty cannot be the revealing of propriatary information to competitors, or the negation of intellectual property rights

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Microsoft could have instead opted to stop selling their OS altogether or somehow ensure full standard compliance on all installed systems.

[tsg]

But part of the penalty cannot be the revealing of propriatary information to competitors, or the negation of intellectual property rights

Why not?

[Segnosaur]

Let's say we invent maglev lines. Microsoft and Netscape both operate trains. Then Microsoft buys out the lines and changes how they operate, but does not tell anyone, forcing competitors off.
You're getting better--
Although that analogy doesn't quite fit the situation...
Now, If Microsoft (in the above hypothetical case) swears that the lines still meet the old standard, you have a case.

First of all, that is (in a sense) what Microsoft has done, when they have published 'standards' that are incomplete.

Secondly, there is another issue... many countries think that, in order to be optimally competitive, Microsoft maglev train company should be competing with Netscape maglev train company, where each company offers its best service/pricing. But if Microsoft controls all the rail lines, and they do something which affects Netscape's trains, then netscape isn't exactly going to be able to compete properly, regardless of whether false claims were made by Microsoft. (Even if microsoft said "We've changed the standard, but we're not telling you what the changes are", the damage to competition is done.)


But part of the penalty cannot be the revealing of propriatary information to competitors, or the negation of intellectual property rights
The existence of anti-trust laws predate the existence of Microsoft. If they wanted to avoid such penalties, then perhaps they should have structured their business better... providing proper separation between the application and Operating system portion of their business.

[rwguinn]

Ok, all y'all have convinced me that:
1. The Law (anywhere) is an Ass.
2. Some times the idiocy of various laws manages to cancel out.
3. I still can't buy a Ford at the Chevy dealer
4. I have not a clue as to a better way to do it, nor does anyone else.


Avarice conquers all...

[tsg]

Ok, all y'all have convinced me that:

Don't blame that on us.

[Gazpacho]

Reverse engineering software is illegal.
So is speeding on the highway but people do it. The methods for reverse-engineering software are well-studied and it's not difficult to find out whether a given program makes a rogue call into the operating system.

What about when they charged Gateway extra money for each Win98 license because they refused to use IE on their corporate intranet?
I'd need to see some documentation of that. If the idea was that Gateway would deploy IE across their network and then make a press release saying how great IE was, and get paid for the press release, then that's a standard cross-promo. And it doesn't prevent anyone at Gateway from using another browser.

[Gazpacho]

The existence of anti-trust laws predate the existence of Microsoft. If they wanted to avoid such penalties, then perhaps they should have structured their business better... providing proper separation between the application and Operating system portion of their business.
Application developers at Microsoft use the same OS documentation that is available to the rest of the world. Aside from an experienced person pointing an inexperienced person to the public documentation that addresses a particular question, there is no "inside track."

[tsg]

Application developers at Microsoft use the same OS documentation that is available to the rest of the world. Aside from an experienced person pointing an inexperienced person to the public documentation that addresses a particular question, there is no "inside track."

Yeah, right.

[Gazpacho]

Yeah, right.
I worked at Microsoft as a software developer for a year. (1/2007-1/2008, my contract ended, but I intend to work there again. It's a great place to make software.)

There were many occasions where mythical "secret API documentation" would have made my job much easier.

It doesn't freaking exist.

[cyborg]

Ah, but it does exist. The problem is that it isn't shared. I.e. it's in the heads of the various teams and they're not encouraged to make it widely available.

[Nick Bogaerts]

It doesn't freaking exist.

Right. So what did Samba pay Microsoft 10,000 Euro (http://samba.org/samba/PFIF/PFIF_history.html) for? Their secret stash of Harry Potter slash-fic?

[Gazpacho]

Right. So what did Samba pay Microsoft 10,000 Euro (http://samba.org/samba/PFIF/PFIF_history.html) for? Their secret stash of Harry Potter slash-fic?
System-to-system interfaces. (PS: You're not funny.)

Ah, but it does exist. The problem is that it isn't shared. I.e. it's in the heads of the various teams and they're not encouraged to make it widely available.
Are you being sarcastic? The API documentation is public. The problem is the learning curve, and in that regard God helps those who help themselves. There's no magic route to learning the APIs.

(There are people outside Microsoft with years of Windows development experience too.)

[cyborg]

Are you being sarcastic?

"Mythical secret API" -> "in people's heads."

No, this is not sarcasm - this is the way it works.

[Nick Bogaerts]

System-to-system interfaces.

Splitting hairs. Another example? the AARD code.

[luchog]

Microsoft has never done either of these.
Yes, actually, it has. It has on a number of occasions altered APIs that broke the ability of third-party software to work on it's systems; while still leaving its own software completely functional.

In fact, it still does this. Just a week or two ago, it introduced a sevice pack for Vista which caused several popular security software suites to cease functioning (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/22/vista_sp1_security_products/); and several others to have "severely reduced functionality". Microsoft claimed that these security software suites cause Vista to become "unreliable". Of course, the fact that they're pushing their own built-in security software has nothing to do with it, I'm sure. :rolleyes: The patch also disables a number of other third party utilites for various hardware components, such as Fujitsu's laptop hard-drive utility.

Their response to complaints was an excessively verbose version of "tough sh*t".

[luchog]

I worked at Microsoft as a software developer for a year. (1/2007-1/2008, my contract ended, but I intend to work there again. It's a great place to make software.)

There were many occasions where mythical "secret API documentation" would have made my job much easier.

It doesn't freaking exist.
Actually it does. I've worked at Micorosft as well, longer than you have. And I've known a huge number of developers, some of whom have been there upwards of a decade. The hidden API calls exist. Microsoft even admitted to their existence in the DOJ antitrust proceedings, although they preferred to use the terms "undocumented" or "poorly documented", and attempted to blame the API writers for being too lazy with their documentation.

They're not widely published inside the company; but are part of what is known as Microsoft's "oral history" or "oral culture", that is, Microsoft's tendency to keep some of it's secrets undocumented and only available by word-of-mouth. They're passed around by senior developers and program managers; and kept strictly internal. They do not share that information with contractors unless absolutely necessary.

[Gazpacho]

Splitting hairs. Another example? the AARD code.
"APIs" means APIs, not every last bit of code in Windows, and certainly not "anything anyone has objected to in Microsoft software ever."

Actually it does. I've worked at Micorosft as well, longer than you have. And I've known a huge number of developers, some of whom have been there upwards of a decade. The hidden API calls exist. Microsoft even admitted to their existence in the DOJ antitrust proceedings, although they preferred to use the terms "undocumented" or "poorly documented", and attempted to blame the API writers for being too lazy with their documentation.
You're talking about interfaces for Microsoft application products into Windows? not calls from programs that ship in Windows, not calls into the NT kernel?

As a Microsoft employee, you presumably know that all released application code is scanned for calls into undocumented APIs, and the output is logged with the compliance committe, and any undocumented calls required to be resolved, so Microsoft doesn't have to keep fighting off this accusation.

Excuse my skepticism, but there are Microsoft developers who are probably better placed than me or you (Raymond and Larry Osterman) who have already written extensively on the matter. Since Microsoft's acknowledgement is public record, why don't you point me to it?

"Mythical secret API" -> "in people's heads."
For anyone to suggest that Microsoft doesn't seek to share its API knowledge outside the company, in view of all the books written by people at Microsoft, and all the issues of MSDN magazine, and all the articles and sample code on MSDN, and the newsgroups and forums where people can ask questions and get answers from Microsoft employees, and most recently the various blogs and recorded interviews... really, who do you think you're kidding?

I find it very sad that some people are so determined to find fault in everything Microsoft does that when it puts out something undeniably right and good, they accuse Microsoft of what amounts to witchcraft.

[Gazpacho]

Of course, the fact that they're pushing their own built-in security software has nothing to do with it, I'm sure.
Yeah, that would explain why they've briefed the affected product vendors in advance and told them that they have to put out an update.

[cyborg]

For anyone to suggest that Microsoft doesn't seek to share its API knowledge outside the company

Missing the point. You're frothing at the mouth too much.

[Gazpacho]

Missing the point.
This point?
The problem is that it isn't shared. I.e. it's in the heads of the various teams and they're not encouraged to make it widely available.
Sorry, this claim just doesn't match up with reality.

[tsg]

I worked at Microsoft as a software developer for a year. (1/2007-1/2008, my contract ended, but I intend to work there again. It's a great place to make software.)

There were many occasions where mythical "secret API documentation" would have made my job much easier.

It doesn't freaking exist.

And I'm just supposed to take your word for it, am I?

I'm sorry, it's going to take a whole lot more than that to convince me the company that wrote the operating system isn't sharing that information with its own applications developers especially if it would help them in the applications marketplace, doubly especially when it's known said company has a history of breaking the rules.

[Father Dagon]

Record EU Fine for Microsoft (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8V2S42O8&show_article=1)

I know there is already a thread about this. I want to have a more reasoned discussion. I completely agree that Microsoft broke the rules and they are being fined because of it. My real question is this:

Should dominating the market require you to do things to help your competitors?

As I understand it, the EU is saying that Microsoft must provide information about its OS so that rival companies can develop software that directly competes with Microsoft software. It seems very weird to me to force a private company to do that. If they didn't dominate the PC OS market, this would be seen as completely unreasonable.

I'm trying to think of another industry where this kind of thing has happened and I really can't. I would be interested in other examples.Totally idiotic! No one humiliates successfull gaming companies with similar claims. And yet there are trends and competition in gaming.... :rolleyes:

[cyborg]

If they didn't dominate the PC OS market, this would be seen as completely unreasonable.

DUH!

That is kinda the point.

Sometimes I wonder.

Totally idiotic! No one humiliates successfull gaming companies with similar claims. And yet there are trends and competition in gaming....

Eh?

[Father Dagon]

I guess that you know that there's trends in the gaming industry. One year is RPGs the talk of the town, another FPS etc...

And what is a computer game when all is said and done? A multitude of code lines? No. Hardware? Nope. A computer game is an experience. And that is all you really need to know about it. So with only the information that I gets by playing StarCraft, I can make a RTS-game that competes with StarCraft.

[cyborg]

So with only the information that I gets by playing StarCraft, I can make a RTS-game that competes with StarCraft.

Sure.

Now all you need is the code, graphics and levels... that's the easy part right?

I still don't get what your thrust is.

[Jekyll]

And I'm just supposed to take your word for it, am I?

I would. I can well believe that someone on a short term contract at microsoft didn't hear any open secrets.

On the other hand, the undocumented APIs are well known, just google (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=microsoft++%22undocumented+API%22&btnG=Search&meta=) for them, and you can find explicit descriptions of various hooks that are missing from the documentation. Go here (http://www.codeproject.com/KB/mobile/shloadimage.aspx) for a random example.

[Father Dagon]

Sure.

Now all you need is the code, graphics and levels... that's the easy part right?

I still don't get what your thrust is.My point is that there's game after game that fails miserably. Also a lots of games that are only mediocre. But you never hears about failing gaming companies that demands that the successfull companies submits their trade secrets.

[Jekyll]

My point is that there's game after game that fails miserably. Also a lots of games that are only mediocre. But you never hears about failing gaming companies that demands that the successfull companies submits their trade secrets.

That's because you don't understand what's going on here.

Suppose Blizzard dominated the computer game industry and then started making joysticks, they could introduce subtle inconsistencies that prevent other joysticks being used, or makes them less responsive.

If they then refused to reveal the details of how to interface a working joystick, they would be abusing their existing monopoly in the way microsoft has done.

It's not enough to just dominate a market, you have to do something bad with this domination before people will take sanctions against you.

[Father Dagon]

That's because you don't understand what's going on here.

Suppose Blizzard dominated the computer game industry and then started making joysticks, they could introduce subtle inconsistencies that prevent other joysticks being used, or makes them less responsive.

If they then refused to reveal the details of how to interface a working joystick, they would be abusing their existing monopoly in the way microsoft has done.

It's not enough to just dominate a market, you have to do something bad with this domination before people will take sanctions against you.Then the gamers would either come up with counter-patches or abandon Blizzard without any remorse. Beacuse hardware and software isn't the same thing. The successfull hardware manufacturers caters to a wide audience as possible.

[cyborg]

Then the gamers would either come up with counter-patches or abandon Blizzard without any remorse.

Do you think you could abandon Microsoft without any remorse?

Do you think it's a simple matter to come up with counter-patches?

Do you think it's always legal to come up with such counter-patches?

I think you fail to appreciate that there are technical and legal differences.

Installing a Blizzard game does not inherently affect my ability to play a Bullfrog game.

If it did you'd agree there'd be a problem yes?

The successfull hardware manufacturers caters to a wide audience as possible.

That statement does not reflect reality.

[Father Dagon]

Do you think you could abandon Microsoft without any remorse?Given enough maltreatment, yes. But then Windows is an OS, not a specific program. I want and expect more of the same, and Microsoft delivers it.Do you think it's a simple matter to come up with counter-patches?Yes, they cracked the DRM, didn't they?Do you think it's always legal to come up with such counter-patches?Catch me, if you can.I think you fail to appreciate that there are technical and legal differences.I do. There's nothing like FUD.Installing a Blizzard game does not inherently affect my ability to play a Bullfrog game.

If it did you'd agree there'd be a problem yes?Yes, but some game manufacturers are actually complete jackasses that thinks that everything revolves around their game. Shall we fine them for bad advertising as well?That statement does not reflect reality.I was refering to computer hardware for the general user. Of course there's always hardware that are more specialized (e.g. fight rudder controls), but on general there's a balance between the elitist and the available that are to be maintained.

[cyborg]

Yes, they cracked the DRM, didn't they?

Yes, but do you think it's simple?

Do you think you could do it?

Catch me, if you can.

That's the general thrust of things.

Yes, but some game manufacturers are actually complete jackasses that thinks that everything revolves around their game. Shall we fine them for bad advertising as well?

Eh?

I was refering to computer hardware for the general user.

You're still wrong. Hardware manufacturer's seek to maximise profit - like any other for-profit organisation. Making a product as widely usable as possible is not necessarily "the way" that goal is achieved.

[Father Dagon]

Yes, but do you think it's simple?

Do you think you could do it?No. But the lowest denominator isn't the answer. With "do you tink you could do it" you can kill any discussion. Say that there's a demand for a patch, then someone will make it. Not all programmers are in it for the cash, but for the glory.That's the general thrust of things.If I release that patch trough some darkweb or anonymous forum, Microsoft will only get rid of it if they destroy the internet AND destroy all computers.Eh?Pick three random computer game magazines. Write down the games with the best and the worst reviews. Then check out their advertising. The difference between the ads of the good games and the bad games should be minimal. Every game is released as if it was the center of the universe. And of course there is always someone who falls for the bad games ads and is some $60 poorer and a lots of wisdom richer. Objectively spoken, the ads of the bad games destroys the competition, as they get more customers than they should if was no ads, only reviews. But then, customers are getting more and more concious.You're still wrong. Hardware manufacturer's seek to maximise profit - like any other for-profit organisation. Making a product as widely usable as possible is not necessarily "the way" that goal is achieved.As widley usable regarding the potential market. It doesn't matter if you make joysticks or drill heads for the oil industry.

[cyborg]

No. But the lowest denominator isn't the answer. With "do you tink you could do it" you can kill any discussion.

Most people could smash a skull with a rock. Not everyone can hack a technical system.

If I release that patch trough some darkweb or anonymous forum, Microsoft will only get rid of it if they destroy the internet AND destroy all computers.

Which is why there's a constant arms race. The end result of which is that using computer's legitimately becomes more and more and more painful.

Is that what you want?

Pick three random computer game magazines. Write down the games with the best and the worst reviews. Then check out their advertising. The difference between the ads of the good games and the bad games should be minimal. Every game is released as if it was the center of the universe. And of course there is always someone who falls for the bad games ads and is some $60 poorer and a lots of wisdom richer. Objectively spoken, the ads of the bad games destroys the competition, as they get more customers than they should if was no ads, only reviews. But then, customers are getting more and more concious.

Again, Eh? This appears to be a completely different discussion.

As widley usable regarding the potential market. It doesn't matter if you make joysticks or drill heads for the oil industry.

Wrong. Just goddamn wrong.

If it costs XXX% amount to make a drill head for x$ return it's not going to happen.

It's called "return on investment."

[WildCat]

That is, Microsoft's bundling of the Media Player with Windows provided them with an unfair advantage over Real,
A lump of feces from a dog under severe intestinal distress has an unfair advantage over Real.

[Wudang]

Some of the youngsters might want to read this
http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/software/appdev/story/0,10801,58236,00.html
Google on IBM "consent decree".