Microsoft's licence to kill

Daily Newsletters

Sign up to ZDNet UK's daily newsletter.

LEADER

Let's start with some facts. Microsoft has been found guilty by the highest authorities in Europe — as in the US — of abusing its monopoly position. As a result, the company is required to stop that abuse. In this case, it has been told it must make server protocols available: by withholding that information, it has prevented companies from writing competitive software.

The guilty party has responded not by publishing the information but by producing a licence. This says that in exchange for lots of money, you can look at the documents and implement the protocols — crucially, including details covered by "claims of a patent or patent application that are necessarily infringed by implementing the [...] documentation".

So far, you don't need a licence to write software for Microsoft operating systems. There's always been the choice — pay up and become a buddy, or develop it independently by reverse engineering. Microsoft's control regime actively discourages the second path — illegally, as the EC has found — but has never been able to actually ban it.

No longer. Microsoft, in responding to the requirement to publish withheld information, is taking the opportunity to actually extend its abuse of power. The implications of the licence are that if you don't sign up you will be open to a patent suit — of course the patents aren't listed, but it's fair to assume that a company capable of patenting the idea of XML documents is not going to be restricted by outmoded concepts such as prior art or novelty.

There is no reason to believe that this is the last such licence. If Microsoft is saying that even using its protocols requires permission, then it is capable of extending that to its desktop and portable operating systems. The company is preparing to bring all applications software under its control — and needless to say, open source is explicitly banned.

The EC must act at once. It is already unhappy with the fees, but that is barely the start. It must insist that Microsoft makes the information available in a way that permits open source to interoperate in accordance with the judgement — and that Microsoft commits to keeping it that way. Even better, it could kill the EU software patent directive, the consequences of which have never been more starkly apparent.

The alternative is to see an extension of anti-competitive practice to dwarf everything that's gone before — a breathtaking contempt of court that calls into question our ability to apply the law. Bill Gates may be a British knight, but he is not yet emperor of Europe.

For a detailed look at the details and implications of Micrososft's proposed licence, read our FAQ.

Talkback

I love how each new release of Microsoft products have more bugs and everything is moved around.
We upgraded to Excel 2003 at the end of 2004, and have had nothing but problems with our Excel add-ins and workbooks (spending a few weeks rewriting everything to ensure stability and compatibility).
Going backwards is not an option - but going forwards is.
Each time I encounter these silly bugs, I spend 15 mins looking at how I can do the same job in StarOffice/Open Office. Initially I was disappointed (a year ago), these days I'm hopeful for the future.

Give me another year or two, and perhaps I can port everything out of MSOffice and into an Open Source alternative, where I can see what code bug causes my add-in to fail.
I'll spend the time to write a patch and announce it to the moderators as per the GPL licence.
My bug will go away forever, and I will have contributed to something greater than myself.

Long live The Rebellion. Down with The Empire.

via Facebook 18 March, 2005 17:07
Reply

How idiotic. The license is available to Open Source providers, it's simply not compatible with THEIR choosen way of doing business. Additionally, the court never said MSFT couldn't charge for it. Even the socialist EU stops short of telling a company they had to give up their IP and do it for free. This whole issue is a political/national football. The reality is that anyone who wanted a rival media player could already easily download and MILLIONS do everyday. Additionally, when al the dust clears, hardly any of MSFT's competitors who were so disadvantaged by not having access to MSFT's code, will actually end up licensing it - just like in the US. Because, this isn't about access it's about trying to beat MSFT in court because they can't beat them in front of the customer.

via Facebook 18 March, 2005 17:26
Reply

How idiotic. ANYBODY can beat Microsoft in front of the customer. Microsoft just makes sure that you can't find customers.

via Facebook 18 March, 2005 17:56
Reply

As those of us in the US have already found out, money talks. The chances of the EC doing anything effective about Microsoft's ruining the EU software market are about zero. In particular, those who are paying attention notice that all attempts to kill the creation of software patents in the EU have eventually been defeated by backdoor politics by the plutocracy, and Microsoft would not have tried this license "solution" if its army of lawyers was worried about fines -- $5 million a day sounds like a lot, unless you remember that Microsoft has over $9 *billion* in cash reserves, and even a year of fines only adds up to $1.8 billion. Computing was a nice field for awhile, but it's ruined now. This is all just end game.

via Facebook 18 March, 2005 18:07
Reply

I'm afraid I have to disagree with your statement.

If you read over the license agreement, there are two important issues:

1. The license fee
2. The non-sharing code condition

The first part (license fee) is a problem not because they charge a fee. Microsoft is allowed to charge a fee for the license, and most would agree that is fair. Other companies charge money to view their API's (though some, such as Apple, do not).

What is under dispute is the <em>amount</em> of the license fee. If the fee is $500, that's fine. It's enough that any small business (or group) could afford. Microsoft charges $ for the license - you can see the license itself here:

http://download.microsoft.com/download/F/9/E/F9E7224E-F673-4E7E-A6F1-14ED283F8030/EU_WSPPAgmt_012505.pdf

The amount in question is $50,000 (see Page 17) - far more than most individuals, let alone small business or groups, could afford.

By doing so, Microsoft is saying "OK, you can view the API's, but we're going to make it so expensive that few people can do it."

This goes in the spirit of the ruling from the EU, which is to allow open competition with Microsoft's server API (aka - allow a competitor to make something like Samba or allow their own product to fully communicate with a Windows server). The point isn't to let only a few companies do it, but allow many companies the chance to counteract Microsoft's monopoly abuses (of which they have been found guilty of by both US and EU courts).

Part 2 is the ability to share code. Suppose I purchase the API, and I'm on the Samba project, which aims to create an Open Source Windows Server compliant software. This way, I could put a Linux, *BSD, OS X, Sun or Windows server and be sure that it works the way I want, is free of hidden insecure code, or just competes with MS products.

However, Microsoft's license has a poison pill. They say "OK, so even if you buy the license, you can not share <em>any</em> code you create with your licensed API with others unless they've also licensed the API". This is like saying "OK, I'll let you open the hood of a car so you can make carburetors for it, but if you share how to make the carburetors, we'll sue you." I'm not sharing the API's themselves, just my code that uses them - it's up to the third party to figure that out on their own. (See page 4.)

This license would directly prevent any Open Source project from ever using Microsoft's server API - which again flies right in the face of the EU's attempt to remedy Microsoft's monopoly practices.

So the EU is right on this. MS was told to release the API information - not to license it, not to make conditions, but release the information. MS is trying to get around their condition with conditions that the EU does not agree with, and if they continue down this path, the EU is certainly within their power to make them pay for it.

Of course, this is just my opinion - I could be wrong.

via Facebook 18 March, 2005 23:10
Reply

As usual, a one sided deal to the extreme.

It's like a robber saying to a judge:

But I did nothing wrong, they handed me their money and I accepted.

Sigh, perhaps they did that because they has a loaded gun pointed at their head?

But judge, it's more then normal to use a loaded gun in my field of business. Surely you can't hold that against me?

Now that you mention it, that is kind of normal. And by now people walking on a street should know that a robbery is to be expected. Sir, I'm sorry to inform you that the law requires me to fine you $1 but otherwise you're free to go.

Thanks judge. By the way, can I have my loaded gun back? I'm short on cash right now and you seem to carry enough money around.

via Facebook 18 March, 2005 23:26
Reply

Bill touted interoperability, yet all these problems still exist? This "duality" is typical of Microsoft - more lies as usual.

via Facebook 19 March, 2005 02:51
Reply

Assuming you're refering to my comment, I never said that Microsoft _should_ not be stopped, I said they _won't_ be stopped. They were found guilty in the US too, it just doesn't make any difference since their "punishment" was more a joke than anything else. If I'm wrong and the EC finds the spine to effectively punish Microsoft and makes them live up to the spirit of the ruling, GREAT. I just wouldn't hold me breath.

via Facebook 19 March, 2005 03:48
Reply

The anonymous poster (second post above) who lists their occupation as mgt (whatever that is!) is clearly ignorant, stupid or biased. How anyone can defend Microsoft - the business that has been found guilty of illegal activities in courts all over the world - beggars belief. Look at the facts! Microsoft is a bullying marketing organisation that foists inferior products on a captive audience maintained through its illegal monopoly. But don't take my word for it - read the facts, and read what Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson has to say about Microsoft:
http://www.twoengineers.com/Richard/microsoft.html

via Facebook 19 March, 2005 07:33
Reply

All this anti-Microsoft stuff is, in reality, the politics of envy. MS make excellent products and just about everyone buys them. That tells you something about the end-user market and its decision on this issue. Let's face it, if open source software was so good, given that it is cheaper (even free in some cases), people (and business in particular) would use it instead. After all, there are plenty of crap office "suites" to bolt on to you inferior Linux OS if you want to, cheaper than the much better MS offerings. But they don't. Ever stopped to wonder why?

via Facebook 24 March, 2005 23:36
Reply

<quote>
All this anti-Microsoft stuff is, in reality, the politics of envy. MS make excellent products and just about everyone buys them. That tells you something about the end-user market and its decision on this issue. Let's face it, if open source software was so good, given that it is cheaper (even free in some cases), people (and business in particular) would use it instead. After all, there are plenty of crap office "suites" to bolt on to you inferior Linux OS if you want to, cheaper than the much better MS offerings. But they don't. Ever stopped to wonder why?
</quote>

Actually, you're wrong. Most microsoft products (ive never come across one that isnt) are buggy, and you'd be surprised how many people dont buy them, the only reason they have is that they're shipped with new PCs. If microsoft were open about the format used for saving files, no-one would even want the microsoft products, because while in the past they may have been the best there, these days they arent. Open source projects would instanlty be more popuplar if the average user knew about them, and that's not likely to happen. Take firefox for example, its userbase is climbing because people find it better, but because so few know about it, the growth is slower than anyone would want. It even has better features for distribution across a business network, so why aren't they implementing it? I think I just told you...

The reason you find linux inferior is years of growing up getting used to windows. Linux is a far superior OS which can be cutsomised to be easier to use, is infinitely more powerful and takes little learning. It would eb much more popular if GNU started paying for adverts on tv, but lets face it they dont have the funds, and with microsofts adverts, theres little point of having an advert of a company youve never heard of. People need to know about the alternatives, and if the EU manage to (as they are trying) to make MS ship longhorn with firefox, then that popularity will increase. Oh yeah, due to longhorns trusted computing compliance it wont run, because open source isnt allowed, and you need to buy a licence from ms. So there we go, ms eliminates competition and open source for its next OS in one fell swoop. Sounds like theyre worried.

via Facebook 25 March, 2005 11:05
Reply

<quote>
All this anti-Microsoft stuff is, in reality, the politics of envy. MS make excellent products and just about everyone buys them. That tells you something about the end-user market and its decision on this issue. Let's face it, if open source software was so good, given that it is cheaper (even free in some cases), people (and business in particular) would use it instead. After all, there are plenty of crap office "suites" to bolt on to you inferior Linux OS if you want to, cheaper than the much better MS offerings. But they don't. Ever stopped to wonder why?
</quote>

Actually, you're wrong. Most microsoft products (ive never come across one that isnt) are buggy, and you'd be surprised how many people dont buy them, the only reason they have is that they're shipped with new PCs. If microsoft were open about the format used for saving files, no-one would even want the microsoft products, because while in the past they may have been the best there, these days they arent. Open source projects would instanlty be more popuplar if the average user knew about them, and that's not likely to happen. Take firefox for example, its userbase is climbing because people find it better, but because so few know about it, the growth is slower than anyone would want. It even has better features for distribution across a business network, so why aren't they implementing it? I think I just told you...

The reason you find linux inferior is years of growing up getting used to windows. Linux is a far superior OS which can be cutsomised to be easier to use, is infinitely more powerful and takes little learning. It would eb much more popular if GNU started paying for adverts on tv, but lets face it they dont have the funds, and with microsofts adverts, theres little point of having an advert of a company youve never heard of. People need to know about the alternatives, and if the EU manage to (as they are trying) to make MS ship longhorn with firefox, then that popularity will increase. Oh yeah, due to longhorns trusted computing compliance it wont run, because open source isnt allowed, and you need to buy a licence from ms. So there we go, ms eliminates competition and open source for its next OS in one fell swoop. Sounds like theyre worried.

via Facebook 25 March, 2005 11:12
Reply

Post your comment

In order to post a comment you need to be registered and logged in.

You can also log in with Facebook. Log in or create your ZDNet UK account below

  • Login

Will not be displayed with your comment

By signing up for this service, you indicate that you agree to our Terms and Conditions and have read and understood our Privacy Policy. Questions about membership? Find the answers in the Community FAQ

Get ZDNet UK's daily newsletter

Enter your email address to sign up

ZDNet UK Live

Philip Charles Cohen

Read about it and weep, John Donahoe ... In addition to Visa’s V.me, there is now MasterCard’s PayPass digital wallet soon to arrive; another...

3 hours ago by Philip Charles Cohen via Facebook on PayPal takes phone-based payments to the high street
apexwm

Leslie Satenstein : Where have you ever seen Mozilla even mention this? Firefox is the most popular browser in the GNU/Linux OS, so I don't see...

4 hours ago by apexwm on Firefox rapid release improves Fedora Linux
songmaster

SHleG: Do you remember building a clockwork scorpion kit (I'm pretty sure I have a photo of it somewhere) — I think it was called something like...

6 hours ago by songmaster on Software with everything
Chris Wortman

Good I love Yahoo! Their search engine is getting better than Google as of late. I find more of what I want on the first page, and usually within...

6 hours ago by Chris Wortman via Facebook on Linux Mint 13 ramps up for KDE release
PatrickG

openhgs has made the point for Windows 8 multiple monitors without realising it! With Windows 7 you have to switch the mouse and so your focus...

8 hours ago by PatrickG on Windows 8 could speed multi-monitor uptake
Leslie Satenstein

Mozilla has threatened to stop supporting Linux. I guess that UBUNTU is going with another browser. I indicated that if Mozilla stops supporting...

9 hours ago by Leslie Satenstein via Facebook on Firefox rapid release improves Fedora Linux
Andy Bolstridge

Much as I abhor Microsoft's licensing practices, this is almost certainly down to purchasing IT equipment via 3rd party consultants - you get the...

10 hours ago by Andy Bolstridge via Facebook on 6 million wasted licences and £1,200 PCs: welcome to government IT
Jack Schofield

@openhgs Windows users have had multiple desktops since Linus started writing Linux. They just haven't shipped as standard because not enough...

1 day ago by Jack Schofield on Windows 8 could speed multi-monitor uptake
Jack Schofield

@Phil at Cloud4 What, Microsoft gets £1,200 per PC and £1,622 per server? Gosh, I'm amazed....

1 day ago by Jack Schofield on 6 million wasted licences and £1,200 PCs: welcome to government IT
craigsc

You guys have no idea what is going on at Autonomy. Autonomy could have been a much more profitable organization. The sales operations at Autonomy...

1 day ago by craigsc on HP cuts 27,000 staff as Autonomy chief Lynch leaves
Moley

How does this impact on dual or multi booting? Seems to me to more or less prohibit this, from Windows 8 anyway. Will Grub 2 recognise Windows 8,...

1 day ago by Moley on Windows 8 start-up speed forces USB boot workaround
apexwm

I don't understand why there cannot be a slight pause during the boot process so the user can press a key. Many operating systems do this, even if...

1 day ago by apexwm on Windows 8 start-up speed forces USB boot workaround
Gavin Goodman

You can now buy the Xi3 modular computer in the UK at http://www.ocdistribution.com . This can be bought with the Tand3m software, pricing and...

1 day ago by Gavin Goodman on CES 2012: Xi3 microSERV3R
Phil at Cloud4

I agree: Mike Lynch can clearly build a business and manage strategy. I suspect the exit of Mike is more likely the end of a planned handover...

1 day ago by Phil at Cloud4 on HP cuts 27,000 staff as Autonomy chief Lynch leaves
Phil at Cloud4

This is unbeleivable government wastage with only one winner... Microsoft 1 - Tax payer Nil!

1 day ago by Phil at Cloud4 on 6 million wasted licences and £1,200 PCs: welcome to government IT
Mispam

So what do you do when you can't boot into windows? Why can't I just hold Shift while I power up instead of having to boot into windows and click a...

1 day ago by Mispam on Windows 8 start-up speed forces USB boot workaround
apexwm

I've also seen that Mac OS X for Intel machines is supposed to run in VirtualBox, which would also be a nice solution. I've never tried it though.

1 day ago by apexwm on xTreme Triple Booting: Linux, Mac & Windows
dave heasman

What I wonder is why when companies are caught bang to rights in not providing contracted services, people bend over to smear the customers? Surely...

2 days ago by dave heasman on Virgin throttles broadband for high-speed customers
pjc158

Strange statement from HP regarding Mike Lynch and not capable of scaling a company. Autonomy was a $7bn purchase which started as a small company...

2 days ago by pjc158 on HP cuts 27,000 staff as Autonomy chief Lynch leaves
lojolondon

Or - possibly, they will destroy business by ensuring people do not invest where there is no return. Another socialist idea, well beyond it's...

2 days ago by lojolondon on Open Data Institute will act as biz incubator