So Much for the Concept of Private Property

[Nathan Brazil]

European Union starts Microsoft fines at $357 million (http://washtimes.com/business/20060712-015512-8296r.htm)

BRUSSELS (AP) -- The European Union fined Microsoft Corp. $357 million today and threatened more penalties, saying the company failed to obey a 2004 antitrust order to share technical information that would allow rivals' software to communicate better with Windows.
Microsoft said it would appeal the fine, claiming the hefty amount was unfair. Its shares fell 36 cents, or 1.6 percent, to $22.74 in early trading on the Nasdaq.
The EU also said it would double fines to nearly $4 million a day starting July 31 unless the company supplies "complete and accurate" technical information to help rivals make software that works smoothly with its ubiquitous Windows operating system.

This is nonsense. Windows is a privately owned, trade marked and copy-righted product, the trade secrets contained within it's code shouldn't be made public just because some whiny eurotrash wants access to write code.

[bobbylien]

That code doesn't contain any trade secrets, its just code that would allow software to better communicate.

[Nathan Brazil]

Regardless, it's Microsoft's property, it's not public domain.

I get as annoyed with the stuff Microsoft puts out as much as the next guy.Â*Â*I'm under no delusions about the quality of product.Â*Â*Regardless, Microsoft is under no obligation to hand the code out for free.Â*Â*If a developer wants to develop software that works with Microsoft's code, he needs to sign an agreement of some sort with Microsoft that will detail what information is to be exchanged and how much will be paid, as well as laying out liabilities and all the other legalities.

If Microsoft lets Developer Blow have unlimited access to it's source code, and DB's security is less that satisfactory, so that a teenager in the Philipines can hack into DB, read MS's secret code, and then write virus taking advantage of a hole in the MS code that melts all hard drives connected to the Internet on April 15 before it cause their CPU's to short out, who's liable for the damages, MS or DB?

Bottom line:Â*Â*It's a commercial product.Â*Â*If someone wants to use it, they need to pay for it.Â*Â*Fair's fair.

Besides, the plaintiffs in the suit are demanding the impossible. They want to be able to write software that will "work smoothly" with a MS operating system. Microsoft's own products don't do that.

[Alonzo]

It's to stop monopolies. Basically, crushing all competition isn't good for the economy as a whole.

[Nathan Brazil]

If someone wants to stop Microsoft's "monopoly", all they have to do is write another operating system that's compatible with all the software currently being used on Windows, and make it better and cheaper than Microsoft.

That's it. Can't be much of a "monopoly" anyway. There's the Mac, and there are other products and systems that run on PC's. I never bothered with Linux, not being a true geek, but I simply refuse to use something as crappy as Internet Explorer, and use an alternate browser that's much better.

Nope, the lame arguments about monopoly aren't working. If I'm the only company that flies rockets to the moon, and Jacque Francoise wants to mine uranium on the moon, he has to pay my price to get there. Otherwise he can either build his own rocket, or not mine uranium on the moon.

[BoogyMan]

Nathan, you said that beautifully. In every other industry on the planet a company has to innovate and engineer its own products. Why should Microsoft be held to a different standard? Especially by the EU? If those guys want to use any one of the hundreds of different Linux distributions, they could, or any BSD distro. Why is Microsoft required to show the world its intellectual property?

[sbannon]

Why is Microsoft required to show the world its intellectual property?
Because a court ordered this after the antitrust hearings and Microsoft agreed to it by continuing to do business? Because Microsoft appealed the 2004 rulings and lost, therefore had the options of A) abide by the rulings or B) discontinue supporting the Windows operating system or even close shop all together.

I know that sounds harsh, but Microsoft had it's day(s) in court and lost.

As a programmer myself maybe I can shed a little bit of light on this to counter some of the knee-jerk reactions. MS isn't being required to share secret source codes, they're being required to share limited information which enables 3rd party software developers to create applications which interact more cleanly with the Windows operating system.

A friend of mine described the whole thing this way once: if you imagine MS is a telephone maker and the 3rd party software developers were answering machine makers, what's been happening is comparable to the telephone maker not allowing the answering machine makers to know what size phoneline jacks are on everyone's phones, so that the answering machines wouldn't be able to plug-in easily and work properly for people.

The ruling doesn't force MS to open up their phones and show the inner-workings, it simply forces them to make available the specifications for external products to connect in and work cleanly.

[BoogyMan]

Sbannon,

I must disagree with you. What they are doing is trying to force Microsoft to divulge trade secret intellectual property. I develop network management software that uses open protocols but HOW I use those protocols to achieve a specific goal is MY intellectual property.

The ruling IS trying to make Microsoft cut its own metaphorical throat.

[Nathan Brazil]

Why is Microsoft required to show the world its intellectual property?
Because a court ordered this after the antitrust hearings and Microsoft agreed to it by continuing to do business? Because Microsoft appealed the 2004 rulings and lost, therefore had the options of A) abide by the rulings or B) discontinue supporting the Windows operating system or even close shop all together.

The courts didn't have the authority to rule on the case.Â*Â*Anti-trust laws are the finest example of mobocracy in action possible.Â*Â*The courts and the government had the power, they didn't have the authority.Â*Â*

Tom Smith and The Incredible Bread Machine by Tom Grant (http://www.vex.net/~smarry/oldbbs/bread.html)

This is the story of a man whose name
Was a household word: a man whose fame
Burst on the world like an atom bomb;
Smith was his last name; first name Tom.


Now, Smith, an inventor, had specialized
In toys, so people were surprized,
When they found that he instead
Of making toys, was BAKING BREAD!


The way to make bread he'd conceived
Cost less than people could believe!
And not just make it! This device,
Could in addition, wrap and slice!
The price per loaf, one loaf or many,
The miniscule sum of under a penny!

...

However, Smith cared not a bit,
For millions ate his bread...
And everything is fine, thought he,
I am rich, and they are fed!


Everything was fine, he though,
He reckoned not with fate.
Note the sequence of events,
Starting on the date,
On which the business tax went up.
Then, to a slight extent,
The price on every loaf rose too:
Up to one full cent!

...

So Anti-Trust now took a hand,
Of course, it was appalled
At what it found was going on.
The "Bread Trust" it was called.

...

But then their lawyer said:
"The Rule of Law, in complex times,
Has proved itself deficient.
We much prefer the Rule of Men,
It's vastly more efficient!


Now let me state the present rules,"
The lawyer then went on,
"These very simple guidelines,
You can rely upon:
You're gouging on your prices if
You charge more than the rest.
But it's unfair competition if
You think you can charge less!
"A second point that we would make
To help avoid confusion...
Don't try to charge the same amount,
That would be Collusion!
You must compete. But not too much,
For if you do you see,
Then the market would be yours -
And that's Monopoly!

...

In fact, they went one better!
They charged "Monopoly!"
No muss, no fuss, oh, woe is us!
Egad, they charged ALL THREE!


"Five Years in jail," The Judge then said
"You're lucky it's not worse!
Robber Barrons must be taught,
Society comes first!"


Now bread is baked by government.
And as might be expected,
Everything is well controlled.
The Public well protected.


True, loaves cost a dollar each,
But our leaders do their best!
The selling price is half a cent..
Taxes pay the rest.



And of course, the reason behind the original anti-trust suit was political, anyway.Â*Â*Gates didn't Clinton enough money, so Clinton's pet bull dyke took him to court.


As a programmer myself maybe I can shed a little bit of light on this to counter some of the knee-jerk reactions. MS isn't being required to share secret source codes, they're being required to share limited information which enables 3rd party software developers to create applications which interact more cleanly with the Windows operating system.

And if I have a pizza and you don't have any, do I have to share it even though we both know what it's made out of?Â*Â*No, I don't have to share it, not even if you're a Somalian.

It's not YOUR pizza.Â*Â*More importantly, it's not the court's pizza, either.

A friend of mine described the whole thing this way once: if you imagine MS is a telephone maker and the 3rd party software developers were answering machine makers, what's been happening is comparable to the telephone maker not allowing the answering machine makers to know what size phoneline jacks are on everyone's phones, so that the answering machines wouldn't be able to plug-in easily and work properly for people.

Sounds like the phone company has the edge.Â*Â*Hint:Â*Â*don't go into the answering machine business unless you have a cousin at PacBell.

The ruling doesn't force MS to open up their phones and show the inner-workings, it simply forces them to make available the specifications for external products to connect in and work cleanly.


The ruling transfers control of a portion of a company that neither the plaintiffs nor the courts own to current and future competitors.Â*Â*That's the real issue, and that's the true immorality of mobocracy.

Freedom is such a better policy.

[sbannon]

I was only pointing out that the original ruling was what it was and the reality today is that Microsoft is legally bound by it.

As for the specifics of what Microsoft is being required to share, I've reviewed them ad nauseam because it does have a direct impact on my work. I think how people feel about whether or not they're being required to show too much comes down to where you stand on how much ownership one can claim after purchasing the Operating System.

To me, it's sort of like when you buy a car. You own the car but you don't own the proprietary technology that goes into making the car start when you turn the key or move when you press the throttle. Still, it's your car and you have a reasonable expectation to be able to add after-market items like an alarm or stereo system if you want. The End User who purchases an Operating System should (in my opinion and the court's decisions) have that same reasonable expectation with installing and using non-Microsoft applications as well.

What the courts ruled was basically that Microsoft was unfairly blocking such after-market products from working to their full potential on computers running the Windows Operating System in an attempt to persuade --or force-- End Users to only use their own products.

The anti-trust laws that the case and subsequent rulings were based on don't exist to give an advantage or even an opening to other businesses or competitors, they exist to protect consumers from what amounts to arm twisting.

The fact that the rulings do provide opportunity to 3rd parties is a side-effect and ultimately brought on by Microsoft's own actions. They unnecessarily created the environment that forced other developers to create applications in such a manner as to perform with less efficiency and stability. These 3rd party developers didn't create the situation and didn't ask for the problems. They aren't developing software just to have trouble with Microsoft, they develop software because consumers in the marketplace want non-Microsoft alternatives to use on their computers. Microsoft added unnecessary obstacles to prevent this (according to the courts), so therefore created the problem and violated the consumer's rights.

Microsoft had an opportunity to defend their practices, they lost. They had the opportunity to appeal the original rulings, again they lost.

[rodeojones903]

Still, it's your car and you have a reasonable expectation to be able to add after-market items like an alarm or stereo system if you want.




But is say Ford required to give you all the information on how to do that? No, you need to research it and figure it out on your own, or pay someone who does.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

The whole argument is moot.

There are alternatives to Windows.

I can run Open Office, AppleWorks, iWorks 06 and Office 2004 on a Mac. All of them make Word, Excel and Power Point documents.

Adobe suite can run on a Mac, Macromedia suite can run on a Mac.

It's Unix based so it can network with anything under the sun.

The Linux people will say they're better than anything.

Hell, there are alternatives. No one buys them in numbers to sway the market share. So what's the problem, there's a big company that can't be dislodged because no one wants to move to the competition?

That's not a regulatory issue.

[Nathan Brazil]

I was only pointing out that the original ruling was what it was and the reality today is that Microsoft is legally bound by it.

Legally, because Microsoft can't legally field an army to defend itself.

Morally, the court's got it's head where the sun never shines.

As for the specifics of what Microsoft is being required to share, I've reviewed them ad nauseam because it does have a direct impact on my work. I think how people feel about whether or not they're being required to show too much comes down to where you stand on how much ownership one can claim after purchasing the Operating System.

To me, it's sort of like when you buy a car. You own the car but you don't own the proprietary technology that goes into making the car start when you turn the key or move when you press the throttle. Still, it's your car and you have a reasonable expectation to be able to add after-market items like an alarm or stereo system if you want. The End User who purchases an Operating System should (in my opinion and the court's decisions) have that same reasonable expectation with installing and using non-Microsoft applications as well.

No such "reasonable expectation exists". Right there on my hard drive it says "Warrenty Void if Seal is Broken". Why? Because I don't have a reasonable expectation of being able to add anything to it, the manufacturer washes their hands with it if I tinker. It's sold complete, and no improvements are authorized. Making a better hard drive is the sole provenance of Western Digital and the other firms that make the things.

There's no reason at all that the same rule shouldn't apply to an OS.

And there's some reason the prospective vendor of "underbody neon lights" can't buy the wiring diagram from Microsoft? He HAS to be given it for free? Why? He's always got the choice of not making the product if he can't figure out how it works. There's no expectation whatsoever that they should be given, gratis, information that Microsoft paid millions of dollars to develop.

If some developer wants something, he should have to buy it from the owner. At the price the owner demands. If he doesn't want to pay the price, he doesn't get the stuff he needs.

That's called freedom.


What the courts ruled was basically that Microsoft was unfairly blocking such after-market products from working to their full potential on computers running the Windows Operating System in an attempt to persuade --or force-- End Users to only use their own products.

So the courts interfere where they don't belong. That's nothing new. Doesn't make it right, either. What price is Microsoft asking for this info? If they're not selling it, sounds like tough luck, Charlie, and more people should look into investing their money on a Mac, or on Linux or some other alternative.

Just because people don't want to make a choice doesn't mean they don't have one, and if more of them found some spine and chose alternatives to Microsoft products, they'd move the market their way.

So there ya have it. The people that sued Microsoft are spineless whiners who aren't good enough to compete in a free market.

I seem to recall the original anti-trust suit. Wasn't it brought by some loser browser company like Netscape over the fact that Microsoft was bundling IE for free with the OEM OS packages? So what? Both browsers were, and are, crap, and I gladly paid for a third party browser that's worked fine, and much much better than IE.

The anti-trust laws that the case and subsequent rulings were based on don't exist to give an advantage or even an opening to other businesses or competitors, they exist to protect consumers from what amounts to arm twisting.

Arm twisting? There were MS agents at all the CompUSA outlets threatening people away from the Mac counters? I never noticed them.

The fact that the rulings do provide opportunity to 3rd parties is a side-effect and ultimately brought on by Microsoft's own actions. They unnecessarily created the environment that forced other developers to create applications in such a manner as to perform with less efficiency and stability. These 3rd party developers didn't create the situation and didn't ask for the problems. They aren't developing software just to have trouble with Microsoft, they develop software because consumers in the marketplace want non-Microsoft alternatives to use on their computers. Microsoft added unnecessary obstacles to prevent this (according to the courts), so therefore created the problem and violated the consumer's rights.

As I said, if they're developing software to work with Windows, they need to PAY Microsoft for whatever technical information they need to make their product run properly, just like General Electric needs to PAY Babcock & Wilcox for the steam generators used in a nuclear power plant. GE can't just sue Babcock & Wilcox and get a steam generator for free, they have to agree upon a price and pay.

No one argues that Babcock & Wilcox is establishing a steam generator monopoly and thus harming all customers who seek to turn on computers using the electricity that would come from the reactor. It's just calle "business".

So. Explain why those third party people can't pay Microsoft, and why Microsoft is under obligation to provide anything at all. You're argument about how the final customers are being protected by this ruling is very much like the father of a pregnant woman's child suing to prevent her from aborting the baby because he's planning on giving the baby girl away at her wedding.

Microsoft had an opportunity to defend their practices, they lost. They had the opportunity to appeal the original rulings, again they lost.

Losing in a kangaroo court doesn't mean a thing. Nor does losing a case based on immorality.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

You know what's so silly about this argument? No one applies the same logic to systems, hardware and software in other categories.

What does it cost to develop a shareware/freeware program for Windows? Absolutely nothing. Opera, Firefox, Netscape all made browsers for Windows without Microsoft help or paying them. Adobe and Macromedia don't pay license fees to MS to make Windows versions of their software. Same with Corel and any number of boxed or digitally distributed software developers.

Now use the flipside comparison. Why should Sony, Nintendo and well, Microsoft, be allowed to have closed hardware and software systems for the PS3, Wii and Xbox 360? They aren't sharing. They don't let developers make software for those systems without paying for development kits, paying the hardware makers to certify the software, printing the DVD's and paying a per unit license fee. Is that not a business model far stricter than what Microsoft has on Windows?

Absolutely.

Now France has taken the step of forcing Apple to open up iTunes to work on players that aren't iPods. Idiotic. If I were Apple I'd pull out of the market. They made the licensing agreements for paid downloads on their own with record companies. They developed the security for those downloads, the transaction system and the software on the computer and that runs the iTunes Store. Not to mention the iPod itself.

So again, why should a company be forced to share the fruits of its labor with competitors? They didn't pay a dime for development and they're not offering a financial incentive to open up said closed systems.

If you want to look at true monoplostic practises look at the gaming industry. If there was just one player with 90% market share this would apply to them. However since there are 3 healthy competitors on the market no one examines the business practises that would otherwise be broken up and lawsuited or regulated to death.

Oh, and don't give me the excuse that gaming isn't the same thing. It's a $12 billion business. It's bigger than Hollywood's domestic gross receipts.

[Mayberry]

Personally, if I were in charge of Microsoft, I would have given the lawsuit the bird and a big FU in the very beginning. Like was said before, Banks Turbo doesn't need Ford's engineering data to build aftermarket turbos, they do it themselves. If you don't have the technical savvy to produce something yourself, hire someone who does. That's the problem today, everyone wants something for nothing, and go to more trouble to get it than if they had just bought it in the first place. Keep the courts out of business. Antitrust was originally for monopolies over necessities of life that people were being gouged for, not for toys that can be done without, or for which there are alternatives available. The courts and government are the reason everything costs so damn much.