You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Science & Technology
EUSSR orders MS to hand over bugs code; Boeing next?
2007-04-05
Microsoft will be forced to hand over to rivals what the group claims is sensitive and valuable technical information about its Windows operating system for next to no compensation, according to a confidential document seen by the Financial Times. The group is required to license the technical information to competing groups under the terms of the European Commission's antitrust ruling issued three years ago. Brussels hopes the order will allow rivals to design server software that runs more smoothly with Windows.
After that they can go after Boeing making profitable planes, then Toyota's manufacturing techniques. They alreay have the right to steal any drug company product.
The Commission last month accused Microsoft of demanding excessive royalties from licences. Microsoft wants up to 5.95 per cent of companies' server revenues as a licence fee. But the confidential statement of objections from the Commission in the long-running dispute makes clear that Microsoft will at best be allowed to levy a tiny fraction of the royalties it is demanding.

According to calculations by the Commission's technical expert, Prof Neil Barrett, Microsoft's demands would mean that rivals could recoup their development costs after seven years. The Commission's expert, who was suggested for the post by Microsoft, goes on to calculate that even an average royalty rate of 1 per cent would be unacceptable for licensees. Prof Barrett states that a 0 per cent royalty would be "better" and adds: "We can only conclude on this basis that the Microsoft-proposed royalties are prohibitively high [...] and should be reduced in line with this analysis."
A 0% tax rate would be better, too. Why don't you work on that.
Three Microsoft rivals that have reviewed the group's pricing scheme extensively – understood to be IBM, Sun and Oracle – come to the same conclusion: "The prices charged by Microsoft are prohibitive and would not allow them to develop products that would be viable from a business perspective," the Commission charge sheet says.

A spokesman for the US group said: "Microsoft will respond to the latest statement of objections in full by April 23. We believe we are in compliance with the March 2004 decision and that the terms on which we have made the protocols available are reasonable and non-discriminatory."

The Commission declined to comment.
US businesses should be grateful they are allowed to sell in the EUSSR under any terms.
Posted by:Walter Duranty

#19  > Is this a red on red fight?

Yes, exactly. Though MS is about 2% more evil than the EU.
Posted by: DMFD   2007-04-05 20:25  

#18  Let me indulge a fantasy.
Bill Gates may not know any hackers, but he knows people who do. How about arranging for some talented people to take a look at EUro leadership's personal finances?
Posted by: gromgoru   2007-04-05 17:55  

#17  While I'm no fan of Microsoft, I'd still like to know if they've ever made a single penny from their China venture. Does anyone have the stats on that? I've heard that they've yet to turn a dime due to theft and piracy.

I anticipate much of the same from the EU. Their "government knows best" structure is pure poison to private entreprise. The EU should not be trusted with a fountain pen, much less source code.
Posted by: Zenster   2007-04-05 15:27  

#16  Most Rantburgers have been along on the ride from our living on a Windows server with code in ASP, and witnessed the convolutions we went through before finally throwing up our hands and moving to Linux/PHP.

I don't know about y'all, but I'm much happier. Except for occasional attacks by Chinamen, we've been doing pretty good for the past year. And no data loss, which was something I always had to look out for on Windows - the occasional records lost without explanation.
Posted by: Fred   2007-04-05 11:57  

#15  To speak honestly as a computer engineer and a developer. For tough applications MS never gives one enough information to really debug and make it stable.

For ruggedness and reliability I would never want to put M$S in a zone (such as combat) where you need a trusted machine. Why? Well for one thing you never know when it's going to throw a temper tantrum and decide it will not run unless some license is made clear or it has a chance to talk to mama in Redmond. (put a sniffer on your pc's connection some time. It calls mama a lot.)

I can see or ships or such in a major battle and losing at a critical moment because some stupid little box decides it needs you to talk to Redmond about some license renewal.

In any complicated and dangerous environment I can't trust M$S. That said I have no problem with folks using in in non-mission critical roles as long as they keep their anti-virus software uptodate. (At games it excels)
Posted by: 3dc   2007-04-05 11:07  

#14  Is this a red on red fight?

If so pass the popcorn.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2007-04-05 09:31  

#13  Gromky,

There is another side to the MS coin you are posting.

I hate to say it, but without the 90% installed base that MS has given us with Windows, we still, as IT, would be stuck in the dark ages of support with major interoperability issues forcing case by case / unique issue everytime.

I remember IT before dos/windows (and during windows' evolution, lol). Oh sure we had DLL hell for a while there, but at least the machines could talk to each other - and not just at a stack level, but useful applications.

Yes MS has been tough, predatory, etc, but they've also acted as a catalyst for the IT industry (beyond mainframe cores in basements).

Yes there is linux and what not, which are important, but in reality we've gained and paid for MS dominace.

I for one do appreciate the other side of the coin, understand your side of it, but am happy with the stabilization of the deskside that windows has brought. I'm not talking bugs here, but market penetration and the known factor of windows being everywhere ... it drives development by reducing risk of compatibility and therefore risk of development. Meaning more developers, more software, etc.

Both sides of this coin exist with MS and it is important to recognize the benefit MS as brought as well as the pain.
Posted by: bombay   2007-04-05 09:29  

#12  they have earned the right to the market share they have now.

Nope, they have used illegal monopoly tactics to get the market share they have now.
Posted by: gromky   2007-04-05 09:15  

#11  Grrrrr. I posted the article. I dunno what happened to the cookie.
Posted by: Jackal   2007-04-05 08:59  

#10  Please ...

There's ample precedent - Microsoft signed a deal back in 2003 that allowed China access to Windows source code. That was the price Bill Gates was willing to pay for selling MS products in the PRC.

PRC-Microsoft Windows Source Code Deal
Posted by: mrp   2007-04-05 07:23  

#9  I'm actually kinda torn about this.

Microsoft has the absolute right to sell binaries only of their product and they have earned the right to the market share they have now. AT the moment Vitsa is apparently going nowhere and is unlikely to soon.

We may eb happy that Bill Gates is getting gigged by the Euros but from a business standpoint, this action is confiscatory because MS's business model disallows open source code. It's not funny when a government any government gives itself the right to destroy a business because it is too successful. It's ugly and its a bad precedent.

Now, as to Boeing; they have actually been down this road. Our very our national fastener standards were derived from Boeing work in the forties and fifties. It made Boeing stronger and it made the nation stronger. WHen IBM did their PC thing, they moved on.

So, I am torn about this. Frankly I think it is a Bad Thing™ that the EU is going to drive MS out of business.
Posted by: badanov   2007-04-05 07:02  

#8  Yeah, because poor, picked-upon Microsoft needs help.

Bullshit. Microsoft has plagued the market for decades with their monopolistic tactics and their shoddy software. Now, someone is finally calling them out on it, and now they have to release source, and MS doesn't like it one bit. Tough.
Posted by: gromky   2007-04-05 05:38  

#7  After that is said the agreement would finally give WINE a real chance of working.

WineHQ.org
Posted by: 3dc   2007-04-05 03:30  

#6  regarding the above code...

Although unintelligible at first glance, it is a legal C program which when compiled and run will generate the 12 verses of The 12 Days of Christmas. It actually contains all the strings required for the poem in an encoded form inlined in the code. The code then iterates through the 12 days displaying what it needs to.

// Although in the above display different line breaks likely wreck it.
Posted by: 3dc   2007-04-05 03:25  

#5  an example of obfuscated code:

#include
main(t,_,a)char *a;{return!0 main(-86,0,a+1)+a)):1,t<_?main(t+1,_,a):3,main(-94,-27+t,a)&&t==2?_<13?
main(2,_+1,"%s %d %d
"):9:16:t<0?t<-72?main(_,t,
"@n'+,#'/*{}w+/w#cdnr/+,{}r/*de}+,/*{*+,/w{%+,/w#q#n+,/#{l,+,/n{n+,/+#n+,/#
;#q#n+,/+k#;*+,/'r :'d*'3,}{w+K w'K:'+}e#';dq#'l
q#'+d'K#!/+k#;q#'r}eKK#}w'r}eKK{nl]'/#;#q#n'){)#}w'){){nl]'/+#n';d}rw' i;#
){nl]!/n{n#'; r{#w'r nc{nl]'/#{l,+'K {rw' iK{;[{nl]'/w#q#n'wk nw'
iwk{KK{nl]!/w{%'l##w#' i; :{nl]'/*{q#'ld;r'}{nlwb!/*de}'c
;;{nl'-{}rw]'/+,}##'*}#nc,',#nw]'/+kd'+e}+;#'rdq#w! nr'/ ') }+}{rl#'{n' ')#
}'+}##(!!/")
:t<-50?_==*a?putchar(31[a]):main(-65,_,a+1):main((*a=='/')+t,_,a+1)
:0 "!ek;dc i@bK'(q)-[w]*%n+r3#l,{}:
uwloca-O;m .vpbks,fxntdCeghiry"),a+1);}
Posted by: 3dc   2007-04-05 03:20  

#4   Obfuscated Code is the proper reply

Obfuscated code is source code that is (usually intentionally) very hard to read and understand. Some languages are more prone to obfuscation than others. C, C++ and Perl are most often cited as easily obfuscatable languages. Macro preprocessors are often used to create hard to read code by masking the standard language syntax and grammar from the main body of code. The term shrouded code has also been used.

There are also programs known as obfuscators that may operate on source code, object code, or both, for the purpose of deterring reverse engineering.
Posted by: 3dc   2007-04-05 03:18  

#3  PBMcL, xactly my sentiment... coming from a Linux user.
Posted by: twobyfour   2007-04-05 01:26  

#2  I'm no MS fan, but legal theft is still theft. It would be cool if Gates reply consisted of a copy of "The Little Red Hen."
Posted by: PBMcL   2007-04-05 01:12  

#1  Although they won't do it, it would be interesting if Microsoft were to tell the EU that under those conditions, Windows software will be withdrawn from the European market. The subsequent screaming might even penetrate the walls of ivory towers in Brussels.
Posted by: RWV   2007-04-05 00:37  

00:00