Microsoft outmanuevers the EU?

[GrandAdmiral]

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/22/1243202&threshold=1

Apparently Microsoft has given up its apeal against a ruling and a 600 million dollar fine against the EU, but a lot of people are saying that the ruling actually helped solidify Microsoft patents and that was the companies intention all a long. I don't really understand this. Can anyone explain it?

The EU didn't win, Microsoft just did. The whole point of the EU's demands was that YOU owned the computer on your desk and Microsoft should provide you the APIs necessary to connect to YOUR computer from anything else you might want. By attaching ANY LICENSE to that basic right the EU sold out. Microsoft's $600M and 3 years of stalling bought them the right to tax anybody exercising their new "rights" under this judgment. The power to tax is the power to destroy. FLOSS can't use this because Microsoft managed to get the EU to honor it's PATENTS in court which was not previously allowed. Microsoft WON the case because they can still choose who gets to pay money, they can choose terms and they can choose how to calculate percent of sales. Projects like Samba based in the EU where reverse engineering is 100% legal and patents aren't allowed have just been SOLD OUT!!

Actually, they just were ignored, and outplayed by MS.

Sad but true.

These quotes from Slashdot are an example.

 

[ori]

I have no idea where they get the idea from that reverse engineering is perfectly legal or that software patents are not allowed in the EU...
Regarding reverse engineering they probably refer to the Software Directive:

Article 6 Decompilation

1. The authorization of the rightholder shall not be required where reproduction of the code and translation of its form within the meaning of Article 4 (a) and (b) are indispensable to obtain the information necessary to achieve the interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, provided that the following conditions are met:

(a) these acts are performed by the licensee or by another person having a right to use a copy of a program, or on their behalf by a person authorized to to so;

(b) the information necessary to achieve interoperability has not previously been readily available to the persons referred to in subparagraph (a); and (c) these acts are confined to the parts of the original program which are necessary to achieve interoperability.

2. The provisions of paragraph 1 shall not permit the information obtained through its application:

(a) to be used for goals other than to achieve the interoperability of the independently created computer program;

(b) to be given to others, except when necessary for the interoperability of the independently created computer program; or (c) to be used for the development, production or marketing of a computer program substantially similar in its expression, or for any other act which infringes copyright.

The problem there is that once Microsoft makes the information necessary for interoperability readily available (this is NOT freely available) reverse engineering is illegal under this act - so this is what is just happening, Microsoft complies with the law, now its competitors have to do so as well.
(Software Directive)

Regarding Software patents:
They are not permissible for computer programs as such (European Patent Convention), but the European Patent Office's Board of Appeals does grant at least since 11/06 the right on patents for technical effects caused by software, thus making software patents to almost anything legal in the EU unless the software does not have any technical effect (EPO Board of Appeals Ruling) - which frankly is not the case for most MS software (it always does something in the memory and/or processor part of the computer - and if only break it ).
Bottom line this article is far off on its facts. Now I do not have much love for Microsoft's business practices but to expect the EU to not only force MS to adhere to EU laws but to actually take away all its copyrights and patents as the author would have it is foolish.
People have not been sold out, Microsoft has to make information necessary for reverse engineering available to all (for $$$) and any competitors have to accept that Microsoft also has a right to exist.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

In the end I wonder who is going to profit more from this judgement?

 

[Masquerouge]

I don't understand. I read the article, which was more an angry op-ed than anything, and I don't understand what Microsoft is supposed to have won.

 

[Mise]

Absolutely no idea what that guy's getting at.

 

[ori]

What quite a few people especially but not limited to the open source community had hoped for was that MS would be forced to make its source code for Windows publicly available (at least the part that is required for interoperability) - this was never within the reach of the original ruling by the EU commission but they dreamed on. As it stands now Microsoft pays a hefty sum and has agreed to give all information required for interoperability to anyone willing to pay a fee that is determined by the EU commission. This however means that suddenly MS makes this information "readily" available which according to the Software directive triggers a situation where people can no longer reverse engineer windows to produce interoperability but rather have to pay for this information - some projects especially open source ones will feel the pinch of this. On the other hand commercial rivals of Microsoft now get easier access to this information than before - so some people won, some people lost.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

I don't really understand this. Can anyone explain it?

I'd guess that it's spin and PR originating from Microsoft so that they can convince the world that they won the lawsuit. They've done it before - they'll repeat, repeat, repeat that they won the lawsuit and that this won't affect them at all and that they're still in control and they're not really guilty of anything.

"Microsoft WON the case because they can still choose who gets to pay money, they can choose terms and they can choose how to calculate percent of sales."

No. They must license under RAND (Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory) terms.

 

[Masquerouge]

What quite a few people especially but not limited to the open source community had hoped for was that MS would be forced to make its source code for Windows publicly available (at least the part that is required for interoperability) - this was never within the reach of the original ruling by the EU commission but they dreamed on. As it stands now Microsoft pays a hefty sum and has agreed to give all information required for interoperability to anyone willing to pay a fee that is determined by the EU commission. This however means that suddenly MS makes this information "readily" available which according to the Software directive triggers a situation where people can no longer reverse engineer windows to produce interoperability but rather have to pay for this information - some projects especially open source ones will feel the pinch of this. On the other hand commercial rivals of Microsoft now get easier access to this information than before - so some people won, some people lost.

I get it now, thanks Ori

 

[Verbose]

Contrary to popular opinion in some quarters of the US, the EU ruling was never about actually robbing Microsoft, but about levelling the playing field.

If this works out as hoped I guess Microsoft is stripped of most of it's powers to shoulder out smaller competitors marketing products that require interoperability using its sheer size, but neither is Microsoft dismantled or even badly hurt, which the irate poster above seems to have been hoping for. If everyone is unhappy with it, it's probably as good a result as can be hoped for.

"Microsoft Caves to the EU" seems to be a more common headline this side of the pond.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

I'd guess that it's spin and PR originating from Microsoft so that they can convince the world that they won the lawsuit. They've done it before - they'll repeat, repeat, repeat that they won the lawsuit and that this won't affect them at all and that they're still in control and they're not really guilty of anything.

No. They must license under RAND (Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory) terms.

No the spin is a comlaint mainly from the open source communtiy and not from the media. MS is saying they lost and will pay up, others are saying bs this is just one your dirty tricks. The quotes are from slashdot posters that don't like Microsoft. Has nothing to do with PR.