[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Fsfe-uk] MS EU anti-trust licences need to be Free, not RAND
From: |
James Heald |
Subject: |
[Fsfe-uk] MS EU anti-trust licences need to be Free, not RAND |
Date: |
Tue, 03 Feb 2004 12:33:47 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031208 |
I suggest we urgently need to get a campaign off the ground, asap, right
across Europe.
It has been all over the press recently
http://news.google.com/news?q=mario+monti+microsoft
that the EU competition directorate is very keen to settle with
Microsoft before May, so as not to have to co-ordinate with 10 more
accession states makes everything much more complicated.
Mostly the case is about what to do with Windows being tied with Windows
Media Player; but as the Economist reported, there is also the allegation
that Microsoft was trying to extend its desktop monopoly into the market for
workgroup servers (file, print, mail and web servers) by keeping secret the
communications protocols that enable its desktop and server products to talk to
each other. “Without such information, alternative server software would be
denied a level playing field, as it would be artificially deprived of the
opportunity to compete with Microsoft's products on technical merits alone,”
[as] the commission warned in 2001.
According to the Economist, Microsoft is facing a fine, specific
remedies over Windows Media Player, and also
Microsoft would be required to license its server-communications protocols to
rivals on a “reasonable and non-discriminatory” basis. This is consistent with
the settlement that Microsoft reached in America, which also requires it to
license some of its protocols.
This despite the fact that in the States, the licensing program became a
total non-event because of the conditions Microsoft imposed:
Critics had complained that its previous licensing terms were so complicated
that only 11 companies had signed up for them... Following a review of the
progress of the American settlement, on January 23rd Microsoft agreed to
simplify and extend its licensing programme to encourage wider use. After the
announcement, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who is overseeing the American
settlement, declared herself satisfied with the company's efforts to comply
with the settlement.
For more detail, see this IDG story at:
http://www.itworld.com/Man/2699/040120mslicensing/
I suggest that there is a need for an urgent all-Europe campaign that
the protocols should *not* made available RAND, but that the measures
can only have any chance of being an effective remedy if the protocols
are released Public Domain, no strings attached.
Cf, for example, the outcome of the US antitrust remedies, where
developers on WINE to avoid any chance glimpse of the MS documents for
fear that they might be tainted by the license conditions.
Presumably over here the EU measures are intended to prevent MS bullying
SAMBA. The protocol information must be released Free, or it will be
completely useless.
It would also be very useful in the argument over Article 6a
(Interoperability) in the Patents Directive, if we could get the
Competition directorate to understand why Free rather than RAND makes
all the difference.
The Economist even suggests it might be in MS's own long term best interest:
In other words, Microsoft may some day conclude that the costs of constant
regulatory battles—legal costs, fines, bad publicity, and bad relationships
with governments—exceed the benefits of its Windows monopoly... One approach
would be to hand some of its Windows protocols over to an independent standards
body... This seems unimaginable now. But unless governments find the political
will and legal arguments needed to break the firm up, it may be the only way
its legal battles will ever end.
- [Fsfe-uk] MS EU anti-trust licences need to be Free, not RAND,
James Heald <=