Posted on 01/25/2006 7:10:50 AM PST by ShadowAce
BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) - Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) said Wednesday it will license its Windows source code to comply with a European Union antitrust ruling.
The source code provides the building blocks of the operating system that competitors need to make products compatible with Windows.
The company's chief counsel Brad Smith said called the move "a bold stroke."
Microsoft has refused to license the source code in the past. Software developers still will have to pay for the code, which open source advocates will not be allowed to "publish for free," Smith cautioned. The company had "just started to provide this information on both sides on the Atlantic" and regulators "want to see all the details," Smith added.
In March 2004, the EU executive levied a record euro497 million ($613 million) fine against Microsoft, ordered it to share code with rivals and offer an unbundled version of Windows without the Media Player software for what the court saw as an abuse of the company's dominant position in the industry.
Last month, the European Commission threatened to fine Microsoft up to euro2 million ($2.36 million) a day backdated to Dec. 15 for failing to obey, saying the software giant was proving intransigent about sharing data with competitors.
Microsoft has launched a legal challenge that will be heard by the European Court of First Instance on April 24-28. The court - the second-highest in the European Union - stressed that the dates for the hearing were provisional and could still be changed.
Smith told a news conference he was "confident" of winning the case.
Earlier, the EU had repeated its complaints that Microsoft was not complying with its demands.
"Microsoft is not disclosing complete and accurate interface information to allow non-Microsoft workgroup servers to receive full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers," said EU spokesman Jonathan Todd.
He said EU regulators took note that the U.S. Department of Justice was also claiming that Microsoft was failing to provide the technical information asked for in a DOJ settlement.
In December, Microsoft said the EU Commission was trying to undermine its Windows operating system with ever-more-drastic demands for technological transparency, and that it would contest the measure under EU law.
Todd said this was untrue. "We are not moving the goalposts as has been suggested," he said. "We are not changing our demands."
"The Commission's position is that Microsoft is obliged to comply with the remedies imposed in the Commission's March 2004 decision - nothing more, nothing less."
Todd stressed that the final word on whether Microsoft is meeting the terms of the EU antitrust order "rests in the first place with the Commission and not Microsoft."
Microsoft claims the EU demands on opening up its software specifications would also open the door to the cloning of the company's core product, the ubiquitous Windows operating system.
The company has until Feb. 15 to formally answer the complaint. It planned to make a statement to reporters later Tuesday.
You're only now realizing that the EU is anti-capitalist?
"thought MS was only supposed to release full API specs to allow for compatibility. Forcing them to release code sounds quite anti-capitalist.
"
I remember the hoo-haw about the Windows API specifications clear back in the 16-bit days. I made extensive use of the Developer's kit back then. One of the things that it did was to warn developers that certain calls to certain .dll libraries might not be supported in future versions.
I paid close attention to that, and always followed whatever MSFT considered "best practice." Guess what? The old 16-bit apps I did still run perfectly, and they weren't simple stuff. But I followed the rules carefully.
Sometimes MSFT didn't follow the rules in its own apps, and used some undocumented calls. I suppose that was a minor advantage to them, but not very much of one.
Software that followed the rules did just fine. I still use an old version of Ami Professional, a 16-bit app, for a couple of tasks in XP. It still works perfectly, too, and boy is it fast, compared to the current version of Word.
Well, fine.
Why do they need the source code to do that?
No, I think if bundling is the problem, then bundling is what needs to be addressed. This other stuff is, as someone else pointed out, starting to simply look like the EU punishing success, and so much the better that it's punishing American success.
I don't agree with opening the source. The only justification would be that previous attempts to get the APIs were stymied by the whole "undocumented API" concept, which would require examination of the source code to prove/disprove.
That's my outlook too, but you almost have to build that kind of a culture from day one. Judging from past experience, I don't think Microsoft runs that way under the hood. It's hard to build that kind of culture (and product) after the fact.
While I may not prefer some of their products and some of their customer service policies, they are a private business and I don't think they deserve the abuse they've gotten from the US and EWW governments. I am free to vote with my feet and buy Linux if I want. As long as there are alternatives and they remain legal, the governments should leave Microsoft alone.
This rationale doesn't apply to the legal shenanigans of the RIAA, MPAA, etc., and so those guys and their tactics REALLY piss me off.
I agree with this. Other than punishing MS for being successful and having a truckload of cash, I see no reason for ordering them to open up the source.
And I understand that you don't support what's going on here - I don't mean to make it sound like you're actually defending what the EU is doing. I'm sure your explanations are about as good as anyone outside the EU could muster, but it doesn't say much for their case that the best we can do with our devil's advocate hats on is something so spectacularly weak ;)
With the EWW economies on the ropes because they're socialists, maybe Microsoft should simply buy Europe. Nah, then they'd rename it "Microsoft Europe".
Ditto, I understand why they are doing it but I disagree with the call..
I have to agree, if that is what is now at issue here. We don't need MS-Windows source code. Who would want that buggy conglomeration of kludges anyway? It's the APIs that are important for interoperability. I don't want to run Microsoft software even if someone is able to look at their code. I prefer stuff that actually works.
I think this is the crux of the issue.
I really believe that there are "secret" APIs, which MS does use to make their applications run faster and more reliably than anyone else can do.
No one has to wade through the entire Windows source code, they only have to find one hidden API to show MS to be in comtempt of the order to release all APIs. And, when MS tries to say: "Oh, we just overlooked that one, we don't even use it ourselves", that is cause to open up the source code on all their applications.
I really suspect this is why MS is fighting so hard on the issue. If it weren't the case MS would have suggested the idea of a court appointed examiner long ago.
"I look at software the same way cryptologists look at encryption algorythms--they should both be open for inspection, but still be secure.
"
Well, then you don't know much about cryptologists. The NSA has many algos they use and are classified Top Secret and above.
Doesn't that also make the transition to the legendary Longhorn unlikely? Except for cosmetic touches?
And Americans!
You boys should be jumping for joy, this is how you've claimed your freeware clones were so superior - because the code was open. Now that Microsoft is opening theirs more you're whining? Ha, obviously because you know your beloved clones are about to be seriously marginalized.
As for me, I'm against it, secrecy is an additional layer of security, and without the EU and other socialists pushing open source on us all this never would have happened.
Now that Microsoft is opening theirs more you're whining?
Im not wining, I am saying I dont think MS should have been pushed into this. Rather than try and pick a fight over it maybe you should see it as a point of agreement.
HAAAA! You constantly run around glorifying your own "open source" ping list but now want to hide when the socialists go mad. Forget it!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.