Re: EU anti-trust case, FSFE, Samba

[Byung-Hee HWANG]

On Thu, 2007-09-20 at 16:20 +0100, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
> Byung-Hee HWANG <bh@izb.knu.ac.kr> writes:
> > anyone to explain about the information's meaning?
> 
> Microsoft has a dominant position in the desktop operating systems market.
> In the EU, dominant positions are legal, but you are not allowed to use a
> dominant position in one market to influence another market.
> 
> Microsoft configured their desktop operating systems to use a secret
> communication protocol, and they configured their server operating systems
> to also use this secret protocol.
> 
> This meant that Microsoft's server operating systems had an advantage over
> everyone else's server operating systems - because everyone else didn't know
> the secret protocol.
> 
> (This would be ok if MS didn't have a dominant position in the desktop
> market, but it's not ok when they do have a dominant position.)
> 
> So, when people were buying server software, they were buying Micrsoft's
> server software because it was the only one that could use all the features
> of the secret protocol.  This is bad for the market because competing
> products are being ignored and consumers are not able to choose the best.
> 
> So, in 2004, the European Commission told Microsoft that the only way to
> undo the harm, to fix the market, was to publish this secret protocol.
> 
> FSFE stepped in and argued that if Microsoft has to publish the protocol,
> free software developers must be able to use it.  (So, no patents, no
> licensing fees, no non-disclosure agreements, etc.)  FSFE also argued that
> Samba is the only real competitor to Microsoft's server software, so Samba
> must be able to use the published information.
> 
> The European Commission agreed.
> 
> Then Microsoft ignored the ruling, then they delayed, then they published
> some useless information, and then they appealed to the Court of First
> Instance.
> 
> On Monday, the Court of First Instance rejected the appeal and confirmed
> that the European Commission's ruling was correct.
> 
> So now Microsoft must publish the secret protocol.  (But it won't happen
> immediately, they will continue to delay, but the fines will continue to
> increase.)
> 
> Microsoft can appeal one more time, but they can only appeal the legality of
> the case, they cannot appeal the facts or the substance.
> 
Actually it sounds like that Microsoft is bad. But there is no
Microsoft's opinion, so I can't agree to your opinion at all.

Byung-Hee