Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature
Jeremy Allison weighs in on EU/MS appeal decision
By Joe Barr and Chris Preimesberger
on
December 22, 2004 (8:00:00 AM)
Share
Print
Comments
Microsoft today lost its appeal of the European Union ruling which requires it to -- among other things -- unbundle the Windows Media Player in order to level the playing field with other firms offering the same functionality for streaming audio and video. It must also make public the information required to allow others to interoperate with the Windows platform. But don't break out the champagne just yet. According to Jeremy Allison, the lead Samba.org developer, if the ruling doesn't preclude royalties, then the whole effort by the EU will turn out to have been a waste of time.
The ruling issued in March stated, "The European Commission has concluded, after a five-year investigation, that Microsoft Corp. broke European Union competition law by leveraging its near-monopoly in the market for PC operating systems (OS) onto the markets for work group server operating systems (1) and for media players (2). Because the illegal behavior is still ongoing, the Commission has ordered Microsoft to disclose to competitors, within 120 days, the interfaces(3) required for their products to be able to 'talk' with the ubiquitous Windows OS. Microsoft is also required, within 90 days, to offer a version of its Windows OS without Windows Media Player to PC manufacturers (or when selling directly to end users)."
Microsoft appealed that ruling, hoping to delay its compliance with the ruling for as long as possible, and claiming irreparable harm would befall the company if it were forced to abide by it.
Microsoft responded to the latest ruling -- the denial of its appeal -- in a statement today by Brad Smith, senior vice president and general counsel for Microsoft, who addressed a conference-call audience of journalists and analysts. He said:
[This decision] really means two things. No. 1, we will activate later today a Web site that our competitors will be able to go to, to start getting information and start going through the process of licensing the communications protocols. We're studying the decision carefully, but we will have that Web site activated later today. As in the United States under the Consent Decree there, there will be particular steps the companies will go through. We've had over 20 companies license our communications protocols in the United States, so we've now established a fair degree of experience that we can learn from and will apply going forward in Europe.Similarly, we will go forward immediately to continue and then complete the work needed to offer in Europe the additional version of Windows that we are required to provide. We have an agreed-upon timetable with the European Commission. Under that timetable, we will complete the final stages of testing and then this additional version of Windows will be made available to PC manufacturers in Europe in January, and it will make its way throughout the rest of the distribution channel so that we expect that resellers in Europe will have this version available to them by February.
But there is more than the media player market at stake in these two rulings. There is also the whole area of "work group servers," an area of computing which is of particular interest to the Samba project, which provides "seamless file and print services to SMB/CIFS clients."
Samba project lead Jeremy Allison cautioned that if Microsoft is able to get royalties included in its licensing of the APIs it is required to make public, the whole effort of the EU will have been a waste of time. On the specific issue of the ruling on Microsoft's appeal, he said, "Could be great, let's wait and see what the details are."
Microsoft provides information about its SMB/CIFS API in the United States in a way that makes it completely unusable by GPL-licensed software, like Samba. Under the GPL, no restrictions on its use, like the royalty charges, are allowed.
Asked if there is anything that can be done to prevent Microsoft from using its U.S. licensing terms in Europe, Allison said, "The Free Software Foundation Europe is in very close communication with the European Union, with the people who are basically pushing negotiations with Microsoft. They are well aware of our position. Whether they do anything about it or not, I don't know, but they are well aware of they need to do to make free software able to compete."
Comments
on Jeremy Allison weighs in on EU/MS appeal decisionNote: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
So what if MS has most of the market, or even if it's a monopoly. There are plenty of FREE and open source media players that people have to choose from. Microsoft doesn't FORCE people to buy their product; it is up to you. Forcing Microsoft to repackage Windows is wrong, since it's Microsofts personal property.
Furthermore, on my Windows system, MS has included IE, Windows Media Player, Windows Messanger, Outlook Express, Calculator, etc. I dont have to, nor do I use any of those. If I want to use BSPlayer, or Winamp to play my media, I can. If i want to use Opera/Firefox, MS isn't stopping me. Even if MS made windows so that I HAD TO use IE, or WMP, they would STILL be in the right. I Don't HAVE TO buy their software. I have Linux, MacOS, BSD, etc to choose from.
I'll break out the champagne when someone can acctually compete with Windows by making a better product. Socialists...
Furthermore, on my Windows system, MS has included IE, Windows Media Player, Windows Messanger, Outlook Express, Calculator, etc. I dont have to, nor do I use any of those. If I want to use BSPlayer, or Winamp to play my media, I can. If i want to use Opera/Firefox, MS isn't stopping me. Even if MS made windows so that I HAD TO use IE, or WMP, they would STILL be in the right. I Don't HAVE TO buy their software. I have Linux, MacOS, BSD, etc to choose from.
I'll break out the champagne when someone can acctually compete with Windows by making a better product. Socialists...
I think the issue here is mostly OEMs being able to put whatever software they want on the computers they sell. Essentially MS said "You can only sell Windows if you include IE and Media Player." This seems like textbook anti-competitive behavior to me.
It has nothing to do with socialism, it has to do with making capitalism work.
It has nothing to do with socialism, it has to do with making capitalism work.
Microsoft ship Windows Media Player on all Windows computers, so making it available to a wide range of clients.
Given that availability, and the DRM component, Windows have a strong sell to media suppliers to provide content in Windows Media Format.
It becomes a self-reinforcing loop, and if you need Windows Media to access downloaded music, then you needs Windows - so vendor lockin. If the next album from MegaBigBand needs the latest version of Windows, then its time for you to upgrade.
Whether or not it's anti-competitive is interesting. You can easily accuse them flooding the market at loss, a valid complaint. It would be really anti-competitive if the deals with the record companies prevented them releasing the media in other formats. I'm not aware of whether or not that has happened.
As for making a better product - many better products exist. The cost of the product though includes the hassle and expense of getting hold of it. If what comes For Free, already there on your shiny new PC is Good Enough, then there's little incentive for users to look elsewhere.
Much of Microsoft's strategy has been to use this tactic. The rest of the strategy is that once hooked, you're locked into the formats. Then the monopolist can charge whatever it wants to keep you in supply.
Lets say that in a few years time you find you have to buy the latest Windows just to continue enjoying your music downloads, or by then you have a subscription service through your permanently online broadband. Will you be busy complaining about socialists then when you have to pay whatever Microsoft charge to continue listening?
Given that availability, and the DRM component, Windows have a strong sell to media suppliers to provide content in Windows Media Format.
It becomes a self-reinforcing loop, and if you need Windows Media to access downloaded music, then you needs Windows - so vendor lockin. If the next album from MegaBigBand needs the latest version of Windows, then its time for you to upgrade.
Whether or not it's anti-competitive is interesting. You can easily accuse them flooding the market at loss, a valid complaint. It would be really anti-competitive if the deals with the record companies prevented them releasing the media in other formats. I'm not aware of whether or not that has happened.
As for making a better product - many better products exist. The cost of the product though includes the hassle and expense of getting hold of it. If what comes For Free, already there on your shiny new PC is Good Enough, then there's little incentive for users to look elsewhere.
Much of Microsoft's strategy has been to use this tactic. The rest of the strategy is that once hooked, you're locked into the formats. Then the monopolist can charge whatever it wants to keep you in supply.
Lets say that in a few years time you find you have to buy the latest Windows just to continue enjoying your music downloads, or by then you have a subscription service through your permanently online broadband. Will you be busy complaining about socialists then when you have to pay whatever Microsoft charge to continue listening?
but it's an open source issue, not a GPL issue. The problem is that MS wants to liscense per seat. Under these conditions, no matter what the liscense, you CANNOT distribute the program freely without losing tons of money.
The GPL and LGPL (some prefer LGPL for APIs or libraries) are partner licences that can be used as appropriate to define different levels of freedom. In the case of the GPL (specifically), it defines, what you are not restricted in doing, and how this freedom* should be passed on through your publishing any modifications (amongst other things).
The comments about samba and royalties are not specific to the GPL or any other source licence - the question is simply do I have to pay to use an API - if I do this charge will have to be passed on somehow - [The "somehow" in the case of SUSE Linux would be you're payment for the Professional Version which can include "non-free" elements which SUSE is then recharging you for]. Innovative software in my opinion may deserve monetary reward [perhaps through a licensing agreement], but an API really does not deserve a licence fee IMHO and should be royalty free for exactly the purpose most computer manufacturers publish APIs - "Interoperability". End Users want it, Corporate IT Managers want it, the only people who don't are abusive Monopolies and people who haven't enough experience yet - YOU.
Suggest you read up about why the LGPL and GPL have the terms they do, and recent and not so recent skirmishes between Microsoft, and anyone who attempts to innovate around their products, or further "Open Standards for interoperability". You might like to start with Microsofts DOS/Windows APIs and attempts to break other software which used them, or Microsofts recent attempts to introduce patented standards into Internet Email. If they were interested in "Open standards for interoperability" concerning email then they should have registered their "suggestions" in a way in which they could make no future demands of the "Users" of their brilliant email suggestions.
I suggest you read the terms of the LGPL and if you're still hungry, the GPL, so that you can express which terms you think make neither of them a "reasonable license" for an API.
*"freedom" has a fuller explanation here: http://www.fsf.org
The comments about samba and royalties are not specific to the GPL or any other source licence - the question is simply do I have to pay to use an API - if I do this charge will have to be passed on somehow - [The "somehow" in the case of SUSE Linux would be you're payment for the Professional Version which can include "non-free" elements which SUSE is then recharging you for]. Innovative software in my opinion may deserve monetary reward [perhaps through a licensing agreement], but an API really does not deserve a licence fee IMHO and should be royalty free for exactly the purpose most computer manufacturers publish APIs - "Interoperability". End Users want it, Corporate IT Managers want it, the only people who don't are abusive Monopolies and people who haven't enough experience yet - YOU.
Suggest you read up about why the LGPL and GPL have the terms they do, and recent and not so recent skirmishes between Microsoft, and anyone who attempts to innovate around their products, or further "Open Standards for interoperability". You might like to start with Microsofts DOS/Windows APIs and attempts to break other software which used them, or Microsofts recent attempts to introduce patented standards into Internet Email. If they were interested in "Open standards for interoperability" concerning email then they should have registered their "suggestions" in a way in which they could make no future demands of the "Users" of their brilliant email suggestions.
I suggest you read the terms of the LGPL and if you're still hungry, the GPL, so that you can express which terms you think make neither of them a "reasonable license" for an API.
*"freedom" has a fuller explanation here: http://www.fsf.org
The thing that makes the GPL not a reasonable license is that it applies its own terms to all parts of a program, even those owned by other people. That is, if any component of a program that is linked together in a way that can be called a 'derived work' is covered by the GPL, then all components must be, or the program cannot be distributed under any terms. This is true even if the users consider the license terms of the other components to be acceptable and it takes away their freedom to choose such a combination. The Samba team has explicitly refused to build a plug-in architecture that could separate functionality into programs not bound to the same license. For example, such a change could have allowed netatalk to cooperate with samba's file locking scheme and avoid corruption for many people. Without such a mechanism, all Microsoft must do to stop the distribution of samba is to find an operation that they have patented, or introduce a necessary one in a future version of their file sharing. Since that part could not continue to be distributed under GPL terms, the program could not be distributed at all.
Netatalk is a Free/Open Source Software project and is released under the GNU General Public License (GPL). Please see
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
As you can see netatalk is GPL and therefore you and anyone else who feels the inclination are free to modify netatalk and/or samba to do the things you feel they currently don't do.
If there is something that netatalk does not currently do that you feel strongly about then I suggest you speak with the developers or pick up a book on C and get cracking. You are free to do that today!
On the subject of Microsoft and Samba, what they fear is that they will no longer be able to charge users for what others are making freely available - needing a license for Client Access to a filesystem was good business for Microsoft but really belongs in the past. My suggestion to them is to concentrate on other areas of their business which do have a profitable future (Microsoft Search Engine, Desktop Search,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET, Media Streaming, DRM) rather than doing what I think they'll do which is as follows:
Microsoft desirable action:
Suggest, in conjunction with other Industry leaders, a filesystem which will have published "free" APIs which all types of source licenses will be able to plug in to. Make it a goal that Windows will work perfectly with this new filesystem and give commitment to a static standard for 5 years
Microsoft likely action: Ignore interoperability goals and don't co-operate with anyone - come up with a unilateral file system standard deliberately including as much patentable technology as possible and file the patents immediately. Don't publish APIs (unless forced to by the EU) and work to release this "wonder" of new filesystems. Oh and yes make sure that it is the default (and probably only choice) available to new Windows Server and Windows Desktop installations so that even if a Corporate IT Manager wanted to retain NTFS to keep interoperability with his lower TCO server (perhaps GNU/Linux or BSD) then he will be prevented from doing so - the silly sausage!
PS The removal of the requirement for Client Access Licenses (Samba/Netatalk) will save you and many thousands of other businesses and home users an awful lot of money when it comes to that necessary activity of sharing files across an office/home network. Rather than knock the GPL perhaps you should be thanking it for helping reduce the costs of doing business.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
As you can see netatalk is GPL and therefore you and anyone else who feels the inclination are free to modify netatalk and/or samba to do the things you feel they currently don't do.
If there is something that netatalk does not currently do that you feel strongly about then I suggest you speak with the developers or pick up a book on C and get cracking. You are free to do that today!
On the subject of Microsoft and Samba, what they fear is that they will no longer be able to charge users for what others are making freely available - needing a license for Client Access to a filesystem was good business for Microsoft but really belongs in the past. My suggestion to them is to concentrate on other areas of their business which do have a profitable future (Microsoft Search Engine, Desktop Search,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET, Media Streaming, DRM) rather than doing what I think they'll do which is as follows:
Microsoft desirable action:
Suggest, in conjunction with other Industry leaders, a filesystem which will have published "free" APIs which all types of source licenses will be able to plug in to. Make it a goal that Windows will work perfectly with this new filesystem and give commitment to a static standard for 5 years
Microsoft likely action: Ignore interoperability goals and don't co-operate with anyone - come up with a unilateral file system standard deliberately including as much patentable technology as possible and file the patents immediately. Don't publish APIs (unless forced to by the EU) and work to release this "wonder" of new filesystems. Oh and yes make sure that it is the default (and probably only choice) available to new Windows Server and Windows Desktop installations so that even if a Corporate IT Manager wanted to retain NTFS to keep interoperability with his lower TCO server (perhaps GNU/Linux or BSD) then he will be prevented from doing so - the silly sausage!
PS The removal of the requirement for Client Access Licenses (Samba/Netatalk) will save you and many thousands of other businesses and home users an awful lot of money when it comes to that necessary activity of sharing files across an office/home network. Rather than knock the GPL perhaps you should be thanking it for helping reduce the costs of doing business.
It is very simple so listen real close. If you don't like the license don't use the code. There are other free software operating systems and software out there with a different license. Or if you don't like any of them, step up to the plate and write your own. Didn't your momma ever tell you it's not right to steal?
OK, the GPL is perfect if your main objective is to never interoperate with any code under any other license. That doesn't mesh well with the main reason that someone would use Samba, now does it? I'd be perfectly happy to never have any reason to use Samba (i.e. no Microsoft products on the network) but their monopoly still stands and you can thank the GPL attitude that you so nicely parroted: "don't use the code", for the lack of competitive products to replace them. The other free software that you grudging acknowledge has permitted some wonderful things like OS-X to be produced. While Samba can be included as-is in such a package the license prevents all the competitive improvements that could be made by including technology available under another license. We'll never displace Microsoft that way.
GPL code interoperates quite well with other license. What you can not do is include gpl code in the source of a none GPL application. As long as the GPL-half is not tied to non-gpl half your cool i.e: gpl databasebackend + non-gpl Database frontend.
Secondly, royalties will guarentee that the only option to an MS servers is going to be another expense server of brand-X ( hav you checked the OS X server cost?). Going royalty free means anyone, you, me, Samba, Sun, can build interorable servers with out having to pay MS and not charge user a per seat fee. That is what Jeremy wants.
Who said we want to diaplace MS? I just want a solid OS that is Open Standards compliant, with apps that use Open Standards and are compliant. So far I have not seen any of this from MS.
Secondly, royalties will guarentee that the only option to an MS servers is going to be another expense server of brand-X ( hav you checked the OS X server cost?). Going royalty free means anyone, you, me, Samba, Sun, can build interorable servers with out having to pay MS and not charge user a per seat fee. That is what Jeremy wants.
Who said we want to diaplace MS? I just want a solid OS that is Open Standards compliant, with apps that use Open Standards and are compliant. So far I have not seen any of this from MS.
As Lee Corso might say, not so fast, my friend:
all Microsoft must do to stop the distribution of samba is to find an operation that they have patented, or introduce a necessary one in a future version of their file sharing
However, Microsoft operates under a unique restriction, one of their own creation: the must be backwards compatible with previous versions of their file sharing system. Often that's jokingly refered to as being bug compatible. Introducing such an addition to their file sharing will be incompatible with previous versions, which is untenable because it will piss off a number of clients. And issuing software updates for their no-longer supported OSs will be politically untenable.
Hoist on their own petard is the term.
Your a fucking idiot. Remember Novell asshole?
Novell? The company whose product became obsolete when people stopped caring about the memory use of a network client? What do they have to do with anything resembling a monopoly now?
Wow, a decision against Microsoft really brings them out, doesn't it? Their favorite targets? What else. The GPL and free/open source software in general.
It wouldn't be so funny if they weren't losing.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
not only Windows Media Player, if i had anything to do with it i would have made Microsoft unbundle Internet Explorer web browser or have Microsoft reduce Internet Explorer's function to just a dialog box for downloads at Windows Update and include one of the Mozilla family of browsers @ Windows Update untill they can build a secure web browser and/or resolve the ActiveX & BHO exploites, and have Microsoft change the install routine of the OS to force a multi user environment making users more aware of what a root/admin password is for and why users of computers should not run their computers with root/administrator privledges all the time...
IMHO these are much more important issues than Windows Media Player
IMHO these are much more important issues than Windows Media Player
"IMHO these are much more important issues than Windows Media Player"
<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..but Real and Sun (from the old Netscape/Real/Sun versus Google pact) were among the prosecutors and prosecuted for Windows Media Player. Not Netscape or Opera regarding Internet Explorer.
<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..but Real and Sun (from the old Netscape/Real/Sun versus Google pact) were among the prosecutors and prosecuted for Windows Media Player. Not Netscape or Opera regarding Internet Explorer.
Microsoft is going to do everything possible to twist, cheat and delay their way out of this one. "Reduced Media Edition" should come with a reduced price as well. No need for the public to subsidize not just software they don't want, but anti-competitive, illegal softare at that.
While all that is getting sorted out it's time to move on to preventing the same shit from happening with HDTV and DVD. M$ has been angling for a grip on those as well. And while the desktop monopoly lasts, both are in danger. Act now before it gets out of hand again.
The Windows and Microsoft brands have their strongest power in the mindshare they represent. Although they continuously degrade their own image, there was a time when Windows genuinely felt like a quality product. It was then that Microsoft could have adapted to fit the new paradigm of open source infrastructure, with closed source solutions sitting higher on the application stack, the corporate "icing on the cake" (i.e. IBM Websphere on top of Eclipse or Apple's Aqua on Darwin).
In today's highly networked world, which demands the utmost interoperability, the idea of a closed source operating system sounds pretty ludicrous. Microsoft could have saved themselves if they had opened the Windows kernel, and shifted their focus to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET, IE, and middleware. Such a move would have depressurised their monopoly and reinvigorated the company, moving foward.
But instead, we have a company that depends most heavily on a mountain of old, patched code for the majority of its revenue. The proper balance of open and closed source is the dynamo that keeps a company alive.
In today's highly networked world, which demands the utmost interoperability, the idea of a closed source operating system sounds pretty ludicrous. Microsoft could have saved themselves if they had opened the Windows kernel, and shifted their focus to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET, IE, and middleware. Such a move would have depressurised their monopoly and reinvigorated the company, moving foward.
But instead, we have a company that depends most heavily on a mountain of old, patched code for the majority of its revenue. The proper balance of open and closed source is the dynamo that keeps a company alive.
That's a uniquely GPL issue...
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 23, 2004 07:22 AM#