another hysterical lawsuit

omg that is freaking funny, and incredibly absurd. OMG!! how dare thier products work so well together!? haahah

http://entmag.com/news/article.asp?EditorialsID=7611

Last I checked not many MS products worked well on Linux or Novell

Using a monopoly in one area (desktops) to get a monopoly in another area (servers), is illegal, even in the US.

The fine they have to pay is cause they agreed todeliver the API information years ago, but then dragged their feet and did absolutely nothing to comply with what they agreed to for more than 2 years. They got lots of reminders by the EU but ignored them all. Of course some the officials patience is not endless or they would be a laughingstock. Hence the fine: MS is not above the law. Even when the US didn't manage to convict them when they were found guilty.

klingens said:

Using a monopoly in one area (desktops) to get a monopoly in another area (servers), is illegal, even in the US.

The fine they have to pay is cause they agreed to deliver the API information years ago, but then dragged their feet and did absolutely nothing to comply with what they agreed to for more than 2 years. They got lots of reminders by the EU but ignored them all. Of course some the officials patience is not endless or they would be a laughingstock. Hence the fine: MS is not above the law. Even when the US didn't manage to convict them when they were found guilty.

Click to expand...

yes, lets sue a company because their own products work best together. Thats absurd.

It would be like japan suing GM because their parts work best in GM cars and not others and won't tell them how they make them. umm no. that is just absurd. Microsoft is a business, whether people hate them or not it doesn't matter. No one (not even a government really) has the right to request proprietary information that a company created, it will only server to hurt Microsoft. And frankly the only people that feel that strongly are just anti-Microsoft fan boys. It won't help the competition, heck the article even mentions how Linux is doing just fine w/o MS help, and is even a threat to Sun more than MS is. If people (read competing companies) can't figure out how to write faster applications/OSs who can blame Microsoft for that they are not the ones writing other people's software. However, what would make EU a true laughingstock (more so than this absurd request and fine) would be if Microsoft just up and left EU. There would be partying in the streets, no, not in the EU, but here at how foolish EU had been about the whole thing. As for API information, have they/you never read the dev papers? it is near nauseating detail on the protocols used by MS products. Since notice they quested information, not necessarily source code.


It is not anti-trust anything, no one is forcing people to use it, no matter how much it is claimed to be that way. As for your analogy of a monopoly in one to force into another area, what? Linux runs fine on this network, its not "omfg slow, MS gimme some source code to fix it (i.e. copy your stuff)" It talks to the server, prints to the printers and shares files just as good as any machine in this office. The second thing would be, what? heaven forbid a Microsoft OS doesn't work well with an IBM server OS? huh? who said you had to use windows workstations? What is the government making you use windows XP but forbidding you to use server 03? I doubt it.


@CGR, its not about the applications its about the Client/Server OS's

I'm with pik4chu on this. Why should you force a company to reveal highly valuable data to other companies?

You're -kinda- missing the point. I agree that fundamentally, it seems like a silly request. However, their viewpoint is that Microsoft is trying to control the server market by making Windows servers work better with Windows desktops, instead of making them work great across the board. That is trying to take over a market by dominating another, which is illegal.

Thats illegal? So if I was trying to dominate the lemonade market by buying all the lemon groves that would be illegal? Just trying to understand this and also I want some lemonade right now.

It really shouldnt be MS's responsibility to make their server "play nice" with other desktop os's. No one is forcing you to use an MS server os.

z0n3 said:

I'm with pik4chu on this. Why should you force a company to reveal highly valuable data to other companies?

Click to expand...

I work for a tharmapeutics company, dude, and openness and full-disclosure is a Good Thing.

While computer software companies are not doing stuff (directly) that could result in people getting killed, the increasing societal reliance on computer software means that the payware industry could stand to have any oversight at all.

Servers and desktops are separate products and the actions of Microsoft as the plantiffs have alleged violate US anticompetition laws.

Believe me. Working with SMB is a Pain In The *** since there's no documentation. And that's true for almost all Microsoft protocols.

Mister Christie, you make good cookies, and I make crap cookies, I want to know your secrets or I am going to sue!

Before you know it EU sports players will be going around head butting players from better teams... oh hang on

Captain Newbie said:

Servers and desktops are separate products and the actions of Microsoft as the plantiffs have alleged violate US anticompetition laws.

Click to expand...

Theres absolutely nothing anticompetitive about making your server/desktop software as compatible as can be with eachother. The only way it would be is if they flat out refused to detect non-MS software/OS systems, or they blatantly put a damper in the way they communicated with eachother. Full access and capability is not stopped by not running two MS systems. There isnt a single company out there that doesnt make products that compliment each other. Look on the back of your bottle of prefered Shampoo, it says right there "Best when used with..."

The case is absurd, I agree. There are some points where microsoft has taken control of the market by making things proprietery, but telling them to share their trade secrets is retarded. I can understand maybe... making their servers more compatible with other OS's if it came down to that, but making microsoft divulge information so that the other OS's can run better with their servers doesn't make sense. Trade secrets are what make some companies better than others.

Oroka Sempai said:

Mister Christie, you make good cookies, and I make crap cookies, I want to know your secrets or I am going to sue!

Before you know it EU sports players will be going around head butting players from better teams... oh hang on

Click to expand...

Many of you seem to be assuming that businesses have a right to act as they wish. Ideally business is encoraged by government, not just because it's business, but because a healthy business sector is so obviously economically important. However a democratic government and the laws which they enact are supposed to serve the people above all else, not the businesses. AFAIK this is why anti-monopoly laws exist, businesses have a lot more power than individuals, and MUST be bound by much tighter laws, and the larger the company, and more serious the situation, the tighter the laws and monitoring have to be.

-The cookies and car parts examples are missing the point, this is about interoperability, Honda making parts that don't fit Ford cars would obviously not be illegal. However Ford trying to design their car components e.g. wiper blades specifically so it is difficult for 3rd parties to make equivalent competing products is illegal.

Now I don't think what is alleged here is that they actively designed the software not to interoperate, but just that they provide information that will encourage competition. This is somewhat bad for microsoft (nothing serious) but very good for anybody wanting product choice and lower prices. Do you want governments to protect you and the economy in general or one large company?

Also consider the rather unusual rights granted to companies, microsoft, sony and others are protected by laws that make it illegal for you to do what you want with a copy of windows or a cd which you have bought. Now consider the possibility of each sphere of business being dominated by one huge corporation (i.e. what might happen if there were no pro competetion/anti monopoly laws), combined with such restrictive and unfair legislation and EULAs governing how you can use their products. Even if you take the view that this ruling is unfair to M$, it is swings and roundabouts.

-The cookies and car parts examples are missing the point, this is about interoperability, Honda making parts that don't fit Ford cars would obviously not be illegal. However Ford trying to design their car components e.g. wiper blades specifically so it is difficult for 3rd parties to make equivalent competing products is illegal.

Click to expand...

I was going to clarify my statements, but this quote does it all the justice it needs. This is exactly what the lawsuit is about.

SMB isn't superior, it's just undocumented. This isn't some kind of uber secret that would ruin MS if it came out. It's something that should be documented, as it is for every other type of server OS, so that interoperation doesn't suffer.

Fathom1990 said:

-The cookies and car parts examples are missing the point, this is about interoperability, Honda making parts that don't fit Ford cars would obviously not be illegal. However Ford trying to design their car components e.g. wiper blades specifically so it is difficult for 3rd parties to make equivalent competing products is illegal.

Click to expand...

I say that if you dont like that, dont buy a ford, just like if you dont like the way ms's server products interact with alternative os's, dont buy the ms server product. This just seems like anti ms people looking for anything to try to bring them down.

My advice to them: go linux, build your own server platform, put up with ms, or atleast just stop whining.


Anways a huge number of major webservers do not use MS.