In last year's European Commission antitrust ruling against Microsoft, the software giant agreed to create a server interoperability licence that would allow rival makers of server software to write applications that can "achieve full interoperability" with Windows client and server operating systems on "reasonable and non-discriminatory terms".
On Friday the EC rejected Microsoft's proposed server interoperability licence, saying it had concerns that the license excluded open source vendors and charged unjustifiably high royalty fees.
ZDNet UK examined a copy of Microsoft's proposed licensing agreement to see the source of the EC's concerns.
So first of all, why is this licence necessary?
Microsoft has been found guilty of breaking EU competition law by "leveraging its near monopoly in the market for PC operating systems onto the markets for work group server operating systems and for media players".
OK, so Microsoft broke the law and was found guilty. What's the punishment?
Well, a €497m (£345m) fine for a start. But the more important part of the punishment is the software giant has to open its protocols to competitors, to help them produce software that interoperates with Windows, both on the client and the server side.
No bird then?
No, nobody's going to prison. Let's call this community service.
Great, so I get a licence to use Microsoft's interoperability APIs in my software and go right ahead, right?
Not quite. Microsoft's draft copy of the licence requires you to pay royalties.
So they're asking to be paid for their community service?
Effectively, yes.
OK, so just what does the licence cover?
Implementation of the Microsoft Work Group Sever Protocol Program, or WSPP. This program comprises two types of software: operating systems that implement Microsoft Windows file and print protocols; and operating systems that implement Windows protocols for administration of users and groups, for things like directory services.
So any operating system that will let me access files on Microsoft servers, or provide file or printing services for Windows PCs or servers, or any operating system that will let me do any authentication, authorisation or directory services in an environment where I have Windows servers?
Right.
But surely this will only affect companies writing operating system software?
Directly, yes, but the royalties will be passed on.
Talkback
As usual, a one sided deal to the extreme.
Excellent article!!
Great digest.
What a stupidly one-sided view of the entire issue. Perhaps you should write comedy instead of business reporting?
Hi my name mitsu_pit, I'm an Alien, I came all this way, but I think I'll go home - your planet sounds horrible.
protocols != applications. Microsoft, in its capacity as an OS house, must freely pass out the protocols which allow applications to run on that OS. If, in its capacity as an apps house, it refuses to do so, it is in the position of being an illegal monopoly. The obvious remedy is to require MS to split into (at least) two separate companies.. One, OS & the other, Apps.
<br>
Charging a company for the privelege of writing apps to run on/with their OS is kind of like Ford charging an after market company for the privelege of making after market parts. Is that next?
Mr Anonymous Salesperson: Microsoft wrote that license, not ZDNet. If you feel that any part of it has been misrepresented in this article then why don't you explain precisely where and how?
Microsoft's behaviour is clearly outrageous. What right do their shareholders have to a return on Microsoft's intellectual property? The EU should force them to hand it over for free to the free software community. We all know that Brussels is always right. The author of this story is a brave warrior on behalf of the EU's campaign for freedom and fairness. Losers of the new Europe unite and rise up! We can succeed where the USSR failed.
Sarcasm or reverse psychology, Boris? I can't tell. But all the EU is asking Microsoft for is the complete API to be freely available. And having the API means that you can (finally) have an intelligent conversation with the piece of Microsoft technology that you have *already bought*. So Microsoft's share-holders *are* getting a return.
The article is too cynical for me to understand it as a non-native english speaker.
So much for objectivity in reporting..
WTF?
Microsoft is required to LICENSE their protocols, not provide charity.
Open source makes MS's protocol visible to non-licensees, which certainly wasn't intended in the original ruling..
So in summary, Adam S, you believe that no-one should be allowed to program on a Microsoft platform without Microsoft's explicitly licensed and fully paid-through-the-nose permission.
Hence all Windows applications must exist at Microsoft's *sufferance*, because Microsoft should be permitted to dictate whatever terms it pleases to its licensees as part of its own punishment.
You *do* realise that the EC was seeking remedies for anti-competitive business practices, right?
Adam S, despite what you may think, a protocol is not the source code of an application. It is a set of specifications which other developers can use to write software that interoperates with the implementing software.
So you think Microsoft should be able to charge huge royalties and dictate the terms to any operating system that wishes to talk to a Windows machine.
You have much to learn.
it would be an interesting exercise to calculate just what Microsoft thinks the value of these interface specifications are. Having done that, compare the figure to the cost of the entire product - methinks that the interface protocols licencing would be more expensive. If so, is Microsoft guilty of "dumping" the complete product into the EC market?
Just as a point of interest; for those that did not follow the appeal to the Court of First Instance (and why Microsoft lost). Microsoft tried to use the "intellectual Property" & "Trade Secrets" argument to protect the interface details of the API's - the judge asked why they had not been raised these arguments in the original case and summised that, as Microsoft had never exercised a licencing strategy, persued prosecution for use of or, for the reverse engineering of API's, that MS had not asigned them any real materilal value before and, as such, could not expect to do so now.
Looks like Bill Gates is still treating the rest of the world like idiots. Unfortunately, there are too many people willing to let him, like anonymous and others above. Talk about anticompetitive behaviour! You know, there is a better way (just look at the glorious new MacOS or even BeOS) , you just have been sucked into the MS vortex and can't operate without them now. And don't talk about the cost of changing...the cost of continuing with the MS ethos is already too high, what with Windows' continued upgrades, security flaws, patching, viruses, and built in obsolesence, it's just that people are always being told how much they need Windows, and how good it is. Good, my arse. What a pile of crap. And to think they are now finding ways to force us to pay for it? Bill Gates said a long long time ago that this was his plan: get people hooked and then figure out how to charge them for it...seems like he is only being true to his word, the devious little hitler.
hey, blue screen, my old friend... how come we keep meeting like this?