Are the EU Rules for Microsoft Reasonable?

[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's Georg Greve put it vey well in an article on Groklaw:

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's Georg Greve put it vey well in an article on Groklaw:

... 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

 

[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's Georg Greve put it vey well in an article on Groklaw:

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.