The eu sure does like to bully microsoft

[+JuggerNaut+]

instead of giving up intellectual property? maybe. :purpledorkface:

[glossy]

yes, microsoft should pull out of one its biggest markets and lose a giant portion of its profits plus hand over a huge market share to someone else. it stands to reason

soon to hit the public domain:

Code: Select all

// © 1985 - 2003 Microsoft Corp.
// EXPLORER.EXE

int Main() {
  long wndMainProc;
  int prog_returnCode;

  while (1) {
    wndMainProc = wnd->getProccess();

   if (wndMainProc == 0x00000F && prog_returnCoed) // TODO: check spelling after lunch?
     break;
  }
}

[BlueGene]

I don't know much about the details, but from what I understand Microsoft cannot just pull out of the European market. It will loose billions, probally be forced to refund money because they won't offer technical support, etc.

[R00k]

Yes, MS pulling out of Europe is a fairly retarded suggestion from MS's standpoint, and will never happen.

That being said, there's either a massive misunderstanding on the part of the EU Commission, or they have an extremely warped view of a software company's obligations to the community.

Microsoft has opened up their products to a very large degree allowing all kinds of interoperability for other developers to interact with Windows in the same way that Microsoft's own applications do.

What the EU are asking for here is completely outrageous. Anyone can currently write applications that interact with Windows, the exact same way Microsoft makes applications that interact with Windows - with the exact same tools Microsoft uses. Microsoft has released all these tools and APIs for the specific reason that it is good for business to do so. They have no reason to cripple people's ability to develop efficient Windows applications, because the more applications that are developed on Windows, the more successful Microsoft is.

I think - SURELY - the EU Commission will eventually come to realize the misunderstanding and settle on a compromise that benefits all parties involved. In fact, if Microsoft were to do what the Commission is asking, it would only serve to hurt other developers instead of help, because it will greatly increase the vulnerability of the Windows OS's, which would at the very least cause greater overhead for the developers due to security issues, and eventually splintering of development groups due to decreased Windows market share.

This is a perfect example of why legislators and politicians should not impose regulations on industries which they know absolutely nothing about.

[Tormentius]

yes, microsoft should pull out of one its biggest markets and lose a giant portion of its profits plus hand over a huge market share to someone else. it stands to reason

I'd say that's less costly than giving up the source code they have poured countless billions into developing so that it can become a free-for-all. There is abso-fucking-lutely no reason that they should be forced into going open source. MS needs to take a stand IMO. Glossy is right as it's by far the most known product, especially for home users, but that doesn't give the government(s) a right to place unreasonable expectations on MS as a company.

This is a shining example of how government and buereaucrats don't have the faintest idea about technology yet think they can regulate it anyways.

[seremtan]

instead of giving up intellectual property? maybe. :purpledorkface:

it's not like they're not being asked to make the entire source available on kazaa or anything

the media player thing doesn't sound unreasonable. i mean, people can still d/l it from microsoft anyway

i'll admit i'm not really au fait with the API thing...

[seremtan]

yes, microsoft should pull out of one its biggest markets and lose a giant portion of its profits plus hand over a huge market share to someone else. it stands to reason

I'd say that's less costly than giving up the source code they have poured countless billions into developing so that it can become a free-for-all. There is abso-fucking-lutely no reason that they should be forced into going open source. MS needs to take a stand IMO. Glossy is right as it's by far the most known product, especially for home users, but that doesn't give the government(s) a right to place unreasonable expectations on MS as a company.

This is a shining example of how government and buereaucrats don't have the faintest idea about technology yet think they can regulate it anyways.

i didn't get the impression from the article they *were* being forced to go open source. the article isn't too clear on the technical specifics to be fair though

[R00k]

instead of giving up intellectual property? maybe. :purpledorkface:

it's not like they're not being asked to make the entire source available on kazaa or anything

the media player thing doesn't sound unreasonable. i mean, people can still d/l it from microsoft anyway

i'll admit i'm not really au fait with the API thing...

This is Windows source code -- if it were made available to vendors it would be leaked eventually (parts of it at the very least) and all over the internet.

APIs are Application Programming Interfaces. They let developers write code to interact with pretty much every single aspect of Windows. You can write your own services with APIs, create your own branded Windows distributions, interact with networking protocols or even write your own, change the Windows interface any way you want, etc. etc - it's nearly limitless for all practical purposes. These are what even Microsoft's own developers use when they write applications for Windows. I've only done a moderate amount of programming for Windows, but I don't know of anything you can't do, aside from making changes to the kernel and other low-level things - but things like that would be changing the most fundamental aspects of the operating system, basically rewriting it your own way, and there are lots of very good reasons that cannot be done, not least of which being that Microsoft has the right to protect their intellectual property.

As an analogy, imagine someone invented a basketball-sized device that was able to produce nearly unlimited amounts of energy using water and steam. They sold this device on the market and it revolutionized the way people work. They created the device with fittings and plugs that would allow other inventors to use the energy in nearly unlimited different ways to create their own devices powered by it. People made climate control systems, power tools, ran entire city power grids off them, our manned space flights ran off them, nearly every new energy-consuming device in the world was able to run off of it. Thousands of new companies sprouted up because of the possibilities this device created, and it was so widely used that inventors could be made overnight millionaires by coming up with a new way to a fundamental and necessary task using the device.

Then imagine people became discontented with the fact that one person or company had the rights to this object and noone else knew how it worked. Sure, it was patented, but the very core concept powering it was a tightly-kept secret, and this device was used to operate the entire world's power systems. So people started getting the idea it wasn't fair for one company to have the power/control they have over everything, and started to complain to the government. They petition the government, and the government threatens to fine the creators of the device - unless they release their blueprints, allowing any person in the world to completely recreate the device in their own basement. And also in the process, allowing anyone to know the most closely-kept vulnerabilities of the device, making it susceptible to all sorts of attacks -- i.e., even people who are just on the same power grid with the device would be able to remotely damage it, make changes to it, or otherwise do what they want with it.

In other words, people become unhappy with simply being able to utilize all the power and possiblities created by this new device; they want more. They petition the politicians, who know nothing of the way the device works, convincing them that, without the blueprints for the device they cannot make competitive new tools that attach to it and run off its energy -- ignoring the fact that they are already doing exactly that, along with the rest of the world.

The company that invented the device has a huge, well-funded team that creates their own tools powered by the device, and since their name is recognized around the world and they have money to market their inventions, their tools are bought by the common consumer more than anyone else's. So even though they are using the exact same adapters, fittings and plugs for their inventions that everyone else is using, their products sell better, and since they have such a massive, well-funded team creating their new devices, they are high-quality products which utilize the energy output to its maximum potential. This adds fuel to the fire, and helps convince the politicians that something is probably amiss, so the politicians threaten to fine the company if they do not release their blueprints and trade secrets of the device.


The developers who are petitioning the EU Commission are either ignorant of some of the technologies they work with, or they are being disingenuous in their statements to the Commission, because they have access to the exact same tools that Microsoft uses, and interact with the operating system using the exact same adapters. Forcing Microsoft to release its source code to anyone based on these arguments which are fundamentally flawed to begin with, is completely ridiculous.

[Foo]

So what you're saying is that the pressure to do this has come from people who want to pirate Windows?

I didn't want to weigh in on this argument, but it's really dumbbbbbbbbbb so suits me well.

BTW on one hand it's being argued that people have full access to develop anything they like on top of the windows system, but it's simultaneously being argued that there's some hidden ways of working in this code which MS needs to protect. Which is it?

[seremtan]

This is Windows source code -- if it were made available to vendors it would be leaked eventually (parts of it at the very least) and all over the internet.

APIs are Application Programming Interfaces. They let developers write code to interact with pretty much every single aspect of Windows. You can write your own services with APIs, create your own branded Windows distributions, interact with networking protocols or even write your own, change the Windows interface any way you want, etc. etc - it's nearly limitless for all practical purposes. These are what even Microsoft's own developers use when they write applications for Windows. I've only done a moderate amount of programming for Windows, but I don't know of anything you can't do, aside from making changes to the kernel and other low-level things - but things like that would be changing the most fundamental aspects of the operating system, basically rewriting it your own way, and there are lots of very good reasons that cannot be done, not least of which being that Microsoft has the right to protect their intellectual property.

As an analogy, imagine someone invented a basketball-sized device that was able to produce nearly unlimited amounts of energy using water and steam. They sold this device on the market and it revolutionized the way people work. They created the device with fittings and plugs that would allow other inventors to use the energy in nearly unlimited different ways to create their own devices powered by it. People made climate control systems, power tools, ran entire city power grids off them, our manned space flights ran off them, nearly every new energy-consuming device in the world was able to run off of it. Thousands of new companies sprouted up because of the possibilities this device created, and it was so widely used that inventors could be made overnight millionaires by coming up with a new way to a fundamental and necessary task using the device.

Then imagine people became discontented with the fact that one person or company had the rights to this object and noone else knew how it worked. Sure, it was patented, but the very core concept powering it was a tightly-kept secret, and this device was used to operate the entire world's power systems. So people started getting the idea it wasn't fair for one company to have the power/control they have over everything, and started to complain to the government. They petition the government, and the government threatens to fine the creators of the device - unless they release their blueprints, allowing any person in the world to completely recreate the device in their own basement. And also in the process, allowing anyone to know the most closely-kept vulnerabilities of the device, making it susceptible to all sorts of attacks -- i.e., even people who are just on the same power grid with the device would be able to remotely damage it, make changes to it, or otherwise do what they want with it.

In other words, people become unhappy with simply being able to utilize all the power and possiblities created by this new device; they want more. They petition the politicians, who know nothing of the way the device works, convincing them that, without the blueprints for the device they cannot make competitive new tools that attach to it and run off its energy -- ignoring the fact that they are already doing exactly that, along with the rest of the world.

The company that invented the device has a huge, well-funded team that creates their own tools powered by the device, and since their name is recognized around the world and they have money to market their inventions, their tools are bought by the common consumer more than anyone else's. So even though they are using the exact same adapters, fittings and plugs for their inventions that everyone else is using, their products sell better, and since they have such a massive, well-funded team creating their new devices, they are high-quality products which utilize the energy output to its maximum potential. This adds fuel to the fire, and helps convince the politicians that something is probably amiss, so the politicians threaten to fine the company if they do not release their blueprints and trade secrets of the device.


The developers who are petitioning the EU Commission are either ignorant of some of the technologies they work with, or they are being disingenuous in their statements to the Commission, because they have access to the exact same tools that Microsoft uses, and interact with the operating system using the exact same adapters. Forcing Microsoft to release its source code to anyone based on these arguments which are fundamentally flawed to begin with, is completely ridiculous.

ok, i hear what you're saying, and it sounds like what this boils down is distributed power/knowledge vs property rights

an alternate imaginary scenario might be: suppose someone had patented the secret of fire, and sued anyone who made their own fire, and insisted on being the sole provider of fire, arguing that people were free to use the heat energy of fire any way they liked. clearly legitimate questions would arise about whether that monopoly on the secret of fire was a good thing, even though the principle of property rights seemed to make the monopoly unassailable

it's an interesting conflict of values, which i don't think is a clear-cut as some are making out. i'd have to think about it more before deciding who i think has the right idea

[Tormentius]

BTW on one hand it's being argued that people have full access to develop anything they like on top of the windows system, but it's simultaneously being argued that there's some hidden ways of working in this code which MS needs to protect. Which is it?

There are many APIs provided and instructions on how to write new APIs for anyone who cares to look. The Windows source code isn't needed in order to write competing apps.

[Geebs]

an alternate imaginary scenario might be: suppose someone had patented the secret of fire, and sued anyone who made their own fire, and insisted on being the sole provider of fire, arguing that people were free to use the heat energy of fire any way they liked. clearly legitimate questions would arise about whether that monopoly on the secret of fire was a good thing, even though the principle of property rights seemed to make the monopoly unassailable

it's an interesting conflict of values, which i don't think is a clear-cut as some are making out. i'd have to think about it more before deciding who i think has the right idea

TBH, MS having a few trade secrets is nowhere near as scary as patents on DNA sequences.

[R00k]

So what you're saying is that the pressure to do this has come from people who want to pirate Windows?

I don't recall saying anything of the sort.

I didn't want to weigh in on this argument, but it's really dumbbbbbbbbbb so suits me well.

BTW on one hand it's being argued that people have full access to develop anything they like on top of the windows system, but it's simultaneously being argued that there's some hidden ways of working in this code which MS needs to protect. Which is it?

Who said they are protecting some sort of secret "hidden ways of working" with the code? I didn't say that - in fact I strongly argued the complete opposite of it.

It sounds more to me like you are inventing inconsistencies where there are none - unless you weren't addressing me?

[R00k]

ok, i hear what you're saying, and it sounds like what this boils down is distributed power/knowledge vs property rights

an alternate imaginary scenario might be: suppose someone had patented the secret of fire, and sued anyone who made their own fire, and insisted on being the sole provider of fire, arguing that people were free to use the heat energy of fire any way they liked. clearly legitimate questions would arise about whether that monopoly on the secret of fire was a good thing, even though the principle of property rights seemed to make the monopoly unassailable

it's an interesting conflict of values, which i don't think is a clear-cut as some are making out. i'd have to think about it more before deciding who i think has the right idea

Well, Windows is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and it can't be "discovered;" in fact it takes a massive team of highly paid people to create it, so I don't think that's a fair analogy for the situation.

[Foo]

My general point is that there's no big secrets to the way Windows works. All the individual features of the OS are things which many software manufacturers could recreate on an individual basis.

The main reason no big rival OS comes up with the same functionality as Windows is that there's no business big enough to put it all together.

Hence once that's understood, the question becomes why would anyone want access to parts of the Windows source?

Because on the finest levels, getting stuff to interact with Windows can be problematic, as anyone who's ever tried to reverse-engineer even a basic networking protocol would be well aware.

Timing loops and random delays where you dont know the random seed being used are but a few small examples of how, on the micro scale, not having direct access to the source can be a pain in the ass.

APIs for Windows are only created for things MS wants to make available. They are not comprehensive, especially not when dealing with complex interaction with the OS, as is this example with the networking subsystems.

[Foo]

Well, Windows is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and it can't be "discovered;" in fact it takes a massive team of highly paid people to create it, so I don't think that's a fair analogy for the situation.

Neither is the creation of fire as performed by humans.

Windows is just electrons flowing which happens in nature too.

[Tormentius]

APIs for Windows are only created for things MS wants to make available. They are not comprehensive, especially not when dealing with complex interaction with the OS, as is this example with the networking subsystems.

Yet there are many software vendors who sell excellent and stable products for network management, administration, etc, all of which are written to Windows APIs without the need for source code. I'd say that "problems" come from a lack of skill or knowledge on the part of the developer(s), not an inability to code well to Windows. MS has an amazing partner and ISV program. To my knowledge there is no other company more willing to go the distance for their partners in order to make apps work well. It is all up to a company to either take advantage of that or go it alone on the extensive documentation they provide.

Windows has never been open source and isn't likely to become so. If a developer wants the ability to manipulate source directly then there are plenty of open source development platforms to choose from.

[Foo]

I think this comment on the article got it down quite well:

think it's perfectly acceptable to force them to a point where it's easy for their competition to be able to interoperate seamlessly. Microsoft is right that source code isn't required, however the commission is probably also right that Microsoft hasn't done enough to comply.

BTW aside from having windows applications work well with Windows, you dont think there's any legitimate reason to have microsoft competitors be able to improve cross-compatability with Windows?

[R00k]

My general point is that there's no big secrets to the way Windows works. All the individual features of the OS are things which many software manufacturers could recreate on an individual basis.

The main reason no big rival OS comes up with the same functionality as Windows is that there's no business big enough to put it all together.

Hence once that's understood, the question becomes why would anyone want access to parts of the Windows source?

Because on the finest levels, getting stuff to interact with Windows can be problematic, as anyone who's ever tried to reverse-engineer even a basic networking protocol would be well aware.

Timing loops and random delays where you dont know the random seed being used are but a few small examples of how, on the micro scale, not having direct access to the source can be a pain in the ass.

APIs for Windows are only created for things MS wants to make available. They are not comprehensive, especially not when dealing with complex interaction with the OS, as is this example with the networking subsystems.

You'll have to cite some specific examples where APIs are not sufficient to create complex interactions with the OS, because I do not believe that is the case.

Microsoft publishes white papers and documentation that is more extensive than that of any other software I've ever worked with, specifically tailored to help developers interact with their OS. As torm said, they also have partner and ISV programs that provide developers with custom solutions to help with any problems that they may not have been aware of before.

You can say a lot of things about Microsoft -- and I have -- but their assistance in helping people work with their products is outstanding, IMO.

It sounds like you may be approaching this from the point of view of independent, open-source developers (?). If so, I have a lot of respect for the open-source community, but I can't think of a reason they should be able to force commercial shops to open up software they've spent billions of dollars and years evolving and tuning. What incentive would any other companies have to create such products, if their intellectual property can be handed over to certain companies at the whim of legislators?

[R00k]

Well, Windows is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and it can't be "discovered;" in fact it takes a massive team of highly paid people to create it, so I don't think that's a fair analogy for the situation.

Neither is the creation of fire as performed by humans.

Windows is just electrons flowing which happens in nature too.

So is everything in this world. By that logic, nothing in history would ever have been eligible for patent or copyright.

[Foo]

So is everything in this world. By that logic, nothing in history would ever have been eligible for patent or copyright.

I wasn't arguing that being natural excludes the notion of patent/copyright. But that shooting down the analogy on the basis of it being a natural phenomenon was but a non sequitur in an already complex debate.

[Foo]

You'll have to cite some specific examples where APIs are not sufficient to create complex interactions with the OS, because I do not believe that is the case.

Microsoft publishes white papers and documentation that is more extensive than that of any other software I've ever worked with, specifically tailored to help developers interact with their OS. As torm said, they also have partner and ISV programs that provide developers with custom solutions to help with any problems that they may not have been aware of before.

You can say a lot of things about Microsoft -- and I have -- but their assistance in helping people work with their products is outstanding, IMO.

It sounds like you may be approaching this from the point of view of independent, open-source developers (?). If so, I have a lot of respect for the open-source community, but I can't think of a reason they should be able to force commercial shops to open up software they've spent billions of dollars and years evolving and tuning. What incentive would any other companies have to create such products, if their intellectual property can be handed over to certain companies at the whim of legislators?

You may be correct. I don't have enough knowledge of Microsoft's developer relations mechanisms to form an informed position on it.

[R00k]

I think this comment on the article got it down quite well:

think it's perfectly acceptable to force them to a point where it's easy for their competition to be able to interoperate seamlessly. Microsoft is right that source code isn't required, however the commission is probably also right that Microsoft hasn't done enough to comply.

The commission is "probably right" that Microsoft hasn't done enough to comply? That's pure opinion, with nothing to back it up that I've seen.

As far as forcing them to a point where it's easy for thier competition to be able to interoperate seamlessly -- that's exactly what Microsoft does, and what I talked about in my last post. Of course the IE boondoggle was a huge exception, but that has been addressed.

BTW aside from having windows applications work well with Windows, you dont think there's any legitimate reason to have microsoft competitors be able to improve cross-compatability with Windows?

I still haven't heard any convincing evidence that their competitors are not able to achieve cross-compatibility with Windows. It is done every day by software companies around the world.

[R00k]

So is everything in this world. By that logic, nothing in history would ever have been eligible for patent or copyright.

I wasn't arguing that being natural excludes the notion of patent/copyright. But that shooting down the analogy on the basis of it being a natural phenomenon was but a non sequitur in an already complex debate.

Ah, but I didn't say "natural," I said "naturally occurring." Windows can't happen by accident, with no human involvement. Fire does not require the mental and physical labor of people to exist, so cannot be called a human creation at all. That's why fire was discovered, and not invented. As far as patenting the intellectual property of the MEANS to create a fire in a certain way -- yes, that CAN be patented, if you can find a way to create it that hasn't already been done. Unfortunately for the inventor, most of those were created before patents or intellectual property laws existed.

But that gets into an entirely different debate - about whether things which are already widely being used can be retroactively patented, as some people have tried to do recently.