Submitted by In a spat over royalties, the European Commission has declared war on accepted global conventions regarding intellectual property rights.
Europe’s Microsoft Case Goes Too Far
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSAlert.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Pat Cox […] advises Microsoft, among other companies, on EU-U.S. relations
“Pat Cox […] advises Microsoft, among other companies, on EU-U.S. relations”
——
Why didn’t you quote the entire passage from the article?
Which is, “Pat Cox is the former President of the European Parliament. He advises Microsoft, among other companies, on EU-U.S. relations.”
You must have had a reason for the selective quoting. Would you care to tell us what it is?
Edited 2007-04-05 19:30
Because the fact he was the former president of EU Parliament has no relevance at all when the problem is that he is indeed working for Microsoft and them, ehm, his neutrality on the subject is at least questionable? The problem is not his previous work, the problem is his actual work.
Thank you for the full quote, anyway, whatever purpose it fits.
I’m not the OP but might I suggest: brevity?
The author’s previous position actually doesn’t change much… you seem to be suggesting that Cox holds some loftier vantage in his opinion because of his past affiliation but this quote from B.Janssen “It may be of interest however, that Mr. Cox belongs to the group of politicians that want to see these patents come into being” just reinforces his bias in the article rather than mitigates it.
“I’m not the OP but might I suggest: brevity? “
That’s funny, I could’ve sworn that it was a blatant attempt to hide the fact that the author might know a thing or two about EU law (much more so than his detractors here), because he felt that including that information would detract from the point he was trying to convey, which was “The author has zero credibilty”. But, when you don’t want to deal with the arguments, attack the argumentor’s credibility, right?
IMO, the author is no more biased than the EC itself. It’s well known that the EC hates Microsoft with a passion, and allow that irrational hatred to influence their rulings.
MollyC, that truly is utter rubbish. The EU is a union of member states and in itself cannot hate anyone, either rationally or not.
As for the EU having a bone to pick with MS, it sure does. You see, we here in the EU have laws that cannot be circumvented by funding the next presidential election. This is something that MS does not seem to realize and when the EU rules that you are, illegally, using your monopoly to kill competition than you, wanting to do business in the EU, must comply with what the EU has decreed is a just punishment.
In th US, there are similar laws in place that have been drafted specifically to protect the consumer, i.e. you and me. The fact that MS was able to buy it’s way out of the anti trust suits filled against it buy the US justice system does not mean that MS is in any way off the hook.
Edited 2007-04-05 20:57 UTC
The fact that the man was president of the European Parliament is irrelevant…knowing “a thing or two” about European law doesn’t mean you can’t be bought for the right price – or do you think all lawyers (who know a thing or two about law themselves) are completely honest, ethical and moral people? If you do, then you don’t know that many lawyers…
That fact is as well-known as the fact that you are yourself part of a pro-Microsoft PR team that post comments favorable to Microsoft on web sites…oh wait, those aren’t facts at all, they’re both *opinions*.
“…hide the fact that the author might know a thing or two about EU law”
I don’t know, and I think you don’t either: Is he a lawyer ? (ps, he isn’t) Unless he was, how could he be sure? This is when the question of his affiliations come in, and it’s mighty interesting that he’s got a salary from MS.
Futhermore, the European Parliament and the European Commission are two completely separate bodies, it would somewhat similar (and equally irrelevant) to have PM Tony Blair comment on this situation. Except he would be less biased, I don’t think he’s on their payroll yet.
Now, the EC has fined many companies and corporations for violating European (EU&EC) laws (anti-competitive, anti-trust, etc), yet the only one so far to be uncooperative is Microsoft. If Microsoft wants to mess with them, they should expect this.
I think your irrational hatred is clouding your judgement.
He doesn’t know. He’s twisting the facts. Typically MS-zealot (or in this case, microserf) is what he is.
Which is, “Pat Cox is the former President of the European Parliament. He advises Microsoft, among other companies, on EU-U.S. relations.”
EU today is a loose union of countries sharing some common laws, for better or worse.
And Mr. Cox demonstrates Britain’s ambivalent dispositions when it comes to cross Atlantic politics.
But I for once would hate to see EU evolving as a clone (and lackey) of USA. “Others” obviously disagree.
Pat Cox is Irish and it is under the direction of Ireland that the EU had the first head on charge from Microsoft.
Not many know an interesting fact about Ireland.
This beautifil green island was actually the base of Microsoft in Europe for longtime and Billy did overflow its politician with cash.
Actually you could trace the rising of Irish economy in the last ten years following the curve of the Microsoft title on the Nasdaq.
So, is it SO strange that the expresident of the EU ( irish) who governed the Eu in the semester in wich his country ( Ireland) was in charge and that actually works now for Microsoft after that Microsoft has flooded the green island ( Ireland) with cash, takes Billy’s side?
I actually thought “Who is this one and why does he seem familiar to me?” all the article long, then I found his Bio and the bell rang.
Long time no see Pat, how’s your bank account going?
Quoting is by definition selective. You imply selecting is suspicious. So trying to undermine the posting, why don’t you tell us abobut your motives for trying to undermine the posting, rather than arguing against suspecting the lobboyist for foul play?
… who is in the employ of MS thinks that a decision against MS is a bad thing. Wow.
I do love the amount of indignation he manages to build up over the idea of MS actually being punished for its monopolistic practices and his comparison to the ‘successful’ conclusion of MS anti-trust violations in other countries (like how in the US as a punishment MS was allowed expand its monopoly into schools with give-away copies of their OS).
Of course the fact that MS have been found guilty of abusing their monopoly in a number of different countries and that clearly those punishments didn’t change their behavior in Europe is ignored…
What a stupid article. Microsoft shills (and Ballmer) scream COMMUNISM! when the whole point is to DEcentralize the market by preventing MS from leveraging their monopoly on the nascent computer industry growing in Europe.
Besides, for the last freakin’ time, SMB is a an open protocol developed by IBM. MS’s implementation of it is an obsfugation, not an innovation, not IP. It would be like saying that Internet Explorer DOM was an innovation.
It would be like saying that Internet Explorer DOM was an innovation.
Shh. Don’t give them any ideas.
>Microsoft shills (and Ballmer) scream COMMUNISM
Communism was all about monopolism by the state.
So Microsoft is aiming at the effects of communism, so how can they imply communism is a bad thing?
Whatever Mr. Cox tries to tell you, there are no “logic patents” in the EU as of yet. It may be of interest however, that Mr. Cox belongs to the group of politicians that want to see these patents come into being.
Then, non-disclosed information enjoys the same protection and status of intellectual property as does disclosed information, namely copyright. At no point has copyright encompassed monopoly protection like a patent. By insinuating that the non-disclosed information may enjoy the protection of a patent — co-equal? what kind of word is that? — he is playing the old intellectual property shell game, trying to confuse us about the different kinds of intellectual property that are recognized. Suffice it to say that we are not dealing with real patents here, because, as said before, this information touches on “logic patents” that are filed but bear no legal significance in the EU anyway.
And before you ask, no, I am not a lawyer, just a citizen of the EU.
Some discoveries are based on pure luch or coincident and not a concerted effort, hard work, huge investments.
This is becasue some discoveries is made by stumbling on an effect by accident. Like Fleming dropping some mold in bacteria by accident leaving it the night over undiscovered and then noticing the mold had killed the bacteria.
Post-It notes was stumbled upon when a new glue attampt failed to stick strongly.
Inherent effects in nature waiting to be stumbled upon by anybody shouldn’t be patentable.
Perhaps a patenteee should prove they worked and invested hard and didn’t discover the effect on accident.
This article overlooks a few things, principally that Microsoft has been held to be a monopoly engaged in practices that contravene Europe’s trading laws. If Microsoft doesn’t like this, it can always withdraw from Europe, watch its revenue halve and have all its senior management be fired on the spot by enraged stockholders.
In the second place, there is Microsoft’s secret weapon in all these legal disputes – growing market share through delay and attrition. By fighting every case to the limit, fighting every appeal, calling for every delay it can conceivably come up with, Microsoft can spin out a dispute for years and all the while increase its market share by continuing to do what the dispute is trying to prevent in the first place. I believe that Microsoft’s market share in the server world has already increased substantially while this particular dispute has been going on. The idea, obviously, is that once you’ve got that market share from your competitors, it is extremely hard for them to get it back again.
Even Neil Barrett, the man who was Microsoft’s own technical appointee, thinks that the royalties proposed in the EU courtroom are way too high: “We can only conclude on this basis that the Microsoft-proposed royalties are prohibitively high…and should be reduced in line with this analysis.”
Naturally there is no mention of this in the article which is about as partisan as you can get. The “accepted global conventions regarding intellectual property rights”, insofar as they exist at all in such a period of rapid change, are not there to prop up American big business.
Fart in the wind. A little stinky at first, but quickly forgotten.
Because the law isn’t important, let’s make this a political issue in the US instead of a legal issue (which you’ve already lost) in Europe.
So basically. Microsoft’s mom (US) told it no. So it ran to it’s dad and asked him, as if mom had said nothing. Dad (Europe) said no too. So now it’s talking to a social worker (the media) about how it can’t have its cake and take everyone else’s too
.
Anyway, whatever you think about this situation it’s not a political issue and it shouldn’t be; especially in the U.S.A.
The article has a few flaws. He does a pretty good job of avoiding a real argument and stating vague facts that almost sound smart (he even uses Latin). For example, they’re violating IP rights that are internationally agreed on: Which ones are they violating? All of them?
He mentions that patents prove Microsoft’s innovation, completely ignoring how the US patent system works (patents are ruled not innovative in the courts more often than the patent office).
Microsoft has been complying with antitrust rulings. Well, at least the really really easy ones like removing WMP. Boy, removing a few dll’s from the install, tough one. But it’s a little less happy about ones that might kill some of their lock-in and help to realize serious competition in those areas. I wonder why!
And they’ve tried so hard! They made a 10,000 page document! 10,000 pages! That’s helpful! If you’re Data (TNG).
And they offered a price layout and asked if it was ok! Seem a bit like asking a police officer if you can rob the Kum&Go in a certain way before you do it? It’s not the EC’s job to set prices, it’s their job to pick out the bullies that are damaging the market and stop them.
Because the law isn’t important, let’s make this a political issue in the US instead of a legal issue (which you’ve already lost) in Europe.
As far as I know, a court has yet to hear this case. The decisions have been made by the EC, which provides no due process, and can seemingly make decisions that are arbitary regardless of what the law says. And their latest actions appear to fly in the face of WTO regulations as well.
I didn’t understand your US=mom, EU=dad comment. Microsoft and the US have a fairly amicable relationship regarding the US antitrust rulings, as the US doesn’t have the “we hate Microsoft with a passion” stance that the EC does.
“He mentions that patents prove Microsoft’s innovation, completely ignoring how the US patent system works (patents are ruled not innovative in the courts more often than the patent office). “
And you seem to dismiss the fact that many of the patents in question were granted by the EU itself. And the EC is arbitrarily voiding those patents (in effect) without any hearings, without any due process. Did you ever reade Kafka’s “The Trial”? The EC seems to be taking its queues from that book.
“Microsoft has been complying with antitrust rulings. Well, at least the really really easy ones like removing WMP. Boy, removing a few dll’s from the install, tough one. But it’s a little less happy about ones that might kill some of their lock-in and help to realize serious competition in those areas. I wonder why!
And they’ve tried so hard! They made a 10,000 page document! 10,000 pages! That’s helpful! If you’re Data (TNG). “
You mock Microsoft’s complying with antitrust rulings (while seeming to back the EU’s nonsensical rulings involving XP N), while missing the point of that portion of the article, which was that an EC flunkie stood up and declared that Microsoft doesn’t abide by antitrust rulings. The fact is, they have indeed complied with the US, Korean, and EU rulings, so that was an outright lie. It’s not the first time that the EU has lied in the public to further their “Microsoft = scum” PR campaign.
“It’s not the EC’s job to set prices, it’s their job to pick out the bullies that are damaging the market and stop them.”
The EC’s job is apparently whatever they decide it is. I read on slashdot today that they are indeed taking on the job of setting the price, and the price will be zero. Haters of Microsoft, I’m sure, spontaneously orgasm on hearing such news, but the precedent this sets is disturbing.
But it’s going to be funny when even with this confiscation of IP and handing it over to competitors, Microsoft still cleans those competitors’ clocks in this space. What excuse will the competitors and their EC lapdogs offer then? What remedy will the EC come up with? Simply barring Microsoft from making servers altogether? Sounds absurd, but it seems to be in the direction they are headed.
Edited 2007-04-05 19:51
Who said anything about patents? The only thing that’s required is for the APIs and protocols to be documented so that other software can interoperate with Microsoft. There’s no IP here to license despite what Microsoft would like.
WRT patents, yes the EU has documented some software patents but software patents are not legal in the EU so those patents are worth less than a that dead to the Brooklyn Bridge that guy in the trench coat is offering you. The EU basically recognized that software patents are patents on ideas and that it’s unjust to grant a monopoly on an *independently* invented/discovered idea just because someone registered it first. It doesn’t help innovation (few programmers ever look at patents for ideas) and it hurts it through having to pay others for the privilege of using *your own ideas*.
WRT the US antitrust case, the Bush administration basically ignored the ruling and decided not to enforce the law. It’s not the first time they turned a blind eye to the law and it’s not the last.
Despite what I’ve said, I think this cat and mouse game between Microsoft and world governments is just a pointless waste of everyone’s time. Microsoft is able to skirt the law the way it does precisely because it *is* a monopoly and has so much power that it can ignore the law. I’ve yet to see another convicted monopolist skirt the law the way Microsoft has. They do it because they can and the EU knows it so they waste time of this endless posturing.
Personally, I think the best monopoly remedy was to break Microsoft up into 4 equal companies and have them duke it out. Since none would be able to use its monopoly power to lock out the competition and use secret APIs, at least one of them would try to get the jump on the competition by interoperating more and ultimately that more open company would win.
But only the US can request this, so the best thing the EU can do is to leave Microsoft alone and focus on increasing competition by:
(1) barring new *government* purchases of Microsoft products for government work and gradually replacing them with replacements. Businesses and homes are free to do whatever they want, but governments and people who work on government contracts need to avoid vendor lockin and foreign ownership of critical systems whenever possible.
(2) placing a monopoly tax on all PCs sold with MS products and all MS products. This tax would be used to fund software based on open standards (which Microsoft is free to implement)
Edited 2007-04-05 20:36
And you seem to dismiss the fact that many of the patents in question were granted by the EU itself. And the EC is arbitrarily voiding those patents (in effect) without any hearings, without any due process. Did you ever reade Kafka’s “The Trial”? The EC seems to be taking its queues from that book.
Now, it’s just the European Patent Office that granted those patents — AGAINST European patent law. In fact, it was the EC who wanted to introduce software patents, which the Parliament, fortunately, voted down.
Also, in the article, he mentions Philips, and its patents in Taiwan. I am not familiar with the issue, but isn’t it about hardware patents, an entirely different beast?
I’d just like to comment on the fact that MollyC’s post was modded down. It contains no personal insults and the only thing offensive about it is the suggestion that ABMers will be orgasming at their desks (which I’m sure no OSAlert reader will literally be doing). It is eminently on-topic about the EC case against Microsoft. Last, but not least, there were no advertisements or spam in the post.
I think, for this reason, that negative mods should be publically visible and have a comment string attached to them in a future version of the OSAlert forum. I’d really like to see justification and accountability for some of the user-moderation on this forum.
In a spat over royalties, the European Commission has declared war on accepted global conventions regarding intellectual property rights
Reading the article, this is plain wrong, but it’s sad because I’d have loved to see it true -in the sense of seeing EU going against the recognition of so-called “intellectual property rights”…
I would like to see the lobbyist prove, that IPR is globally recognized.
I am always amazed on how much people don’t value their freedoms. But then, when you’re parents were used to having others think for themselves, it’s probably hard to notice this bit of reality.
God bless welfare states. Home of socialism. Enemy of freedom.
remedy. If you can’t break Microsoft up, you defang their ability to lock in customers. You do this by requiring them to publish the technical details of their protocols. For example, instead of having to buy Server 2k3 and use IIS to get single sign-on to web apps in a windows domain, being able to choose Apache and Samba. Essentially, you take away the power of their desktop monopoly.
This still does not prevent Microsoft from enforcing patents or other IP rights. For example, if I infringe on their patents when making my 100% active directory compatible domain controller, I’m still liable for that infringement. However, if I want to talk to an A/D domain controller, I now have access to the complete documentation on the protocol. In that sense there is no taking of intellectual property from Microsoft, and that’s where Mr. Cox is dead wrong.
It might be a template for the US. It forces Microsoft to compete strictly on the quality of their software rather than plying their market domination. If they make the best of something, then they will continue to dominate that market. However, they will have a harder time forcing market domination in other markets just because they have 95-ish% of the desktop market.
I just can’t stand this term any more. I quake and shiver whenever I hear this term.
Microsoft can take its intellectual property and shove it well up into Ballmer’s hairy behind.
So long as Microsoft exists, software will be politics, instead of being software.
Last tike I checked baboons did not have hairy butts
up IP rights:
>>This is not a dispute about the goal of interoperability, as such. . . . But the unilateral voiding of standard intellectual property rights, coupled with nominal royalties for a company’s innovation and knowhow, are a close approximation.<<
I think this article may target people who don’t know about APIs. Opening APIs will give away technical secrets about how msft software operates. It will only allow non-msft software to interoperate in a msft environment.
In deference to this article. I think this is, very much, about interoperability, as such.
I completely disagree with this article. In no way does the EU ruling have anything to do with MS IP. Instead, it has everything to do with protecting the consumer from the illegal tactics of a virtual monopoly. Opening up and documenting protocols and API specs for free, or at least very little money, was the dominant trait in the industry for many years.
About six years ago, I was having a conversation with a Danish Linux Admin who said that, in order for the IT industry to be on an even footing, we needed Microsoft to open up they’re APIs. “Not until hell freezes over!” was my reply to which he calmly stated that if the EU really looked into the situation, that would soon change. As my rear end is not suffering from frost bite, I gotta say it looks like I lost that particular disagreement.
His point was that, you can break up the company but until everybody had equal access to the protocols and APIs, nothing will change and I think that the EU knows this very well.
MS will drag their feet and will have to be dragged into compliance but that fact remains that, no matter what they do, they will have to hand them over.
>>MS will drag their feet and will have to be dragged into compliance but that fact remains that, no matter what they do, they will have to hand them over.<<
I hope you’re right about that, but I wouldn’t bet on it. Msft has a long history of slipping the noose.
If I were Microsoft, I wouldn’t be getting people to right articles like this. Talking about Communism and ‘accepted conventions regarding intellectual property rights’ – i.e. what Microsoft’s idea of intellectual property, and the ridiculous situation in the US. (In reality, there is no such thing as intellectual property)
It will only antagonise the European Commission even more.
This is not an article, it is an editorial. It is filled with belligerent terms which obfuscate how few facts are actually discussed in the text.
Using phrases such as “Global War” (No wars have been declared and MS continues to do business there), “Interminable Case” (And which side was found guilty.. HOW many years ago?), and “Self-serving Arbiter” (What other authority should have jurisdiction here.. the UN?)the author gives fair warning of his own bias in the earliest paragraphs.
He goes on to use examples outside the case. (Never does he reveal exactly what MS was asked to do, what it has already been fined for NOT doing, or the foot dragging involved to prevent resolution.) These cases have some similarities, but help show obvious injustice elsewhere to show this case must be unjust too, without them being the same events at all.
What exactly did Microsoft do? It only requested 5-6% of ALL revenue for products that might have to interoperate with the MS product a fraction of the time. (Oh.. and don’t forget the $50,000 dollar printing fee) This based on the ‘innovation’ of obscuring a common set of formats with new features that break compatibility with anything outside the Windows universe. The arbiters in the case have already shown doubt that the documents show any creative justification. Asking the prices given, numerous companies have stated it would take at least 7 years to recoup an investment in an industry where things change in less than 3. To suggest they can use it profitably, nevermind the impossibility of individuals paying these prices, is absurd and makes the amelioration of the illegal anti-competitive behavior unrealistic at best.
This is not an article, it is an editorial.
Did IQs suddenly drop while I was away? Dude, check out the subheading of the article: VIEWPOINT. As in, opinion piece. Sheez. Don’t you people bother to read before you post?
…makes a fatal mistake.
In order for technology to be patentable, it must be novel, “non-obvious,” and make a technical contribution—in short, it must be innovative.
Yes, in theory. But in reality it is not. Besides that patents does not exist in EU. You can get patents, but they are only valid outside EU. And in EU software patents do not equal innovation. The term “innovation” has also been emptied of all meaning by patent-applying companies. So his whole argumentation is void.
His argument about undisclosed information is irrelevant, since undisclosed information isn’t a part of this. Only (must-be) published information is a part of this.
Typically microserf.
EDIT: Fixed errors in tags.
Edited 2007-04-06 04:33
Yet another person on the paylist for keeping up Microsoft’s Reality Distortion Field.
You’d think that with the 1-billion lawsuit they lost, they’d be less eager to press for patent law like this.
Edited 2007-04-06 07:14
It’s sad to see so many people that are so blinded by their personal MS hatred that they can’t see reason when it hits them in the head.
Many of you also seem to forget that the main competitors that would have any gain at all are not small fry, but big corps like IBM. Or you choose to ignore that fact because IBM is “OSS friendly”.
You discard everything the article author says only because he’s advising MS (AND OTHERS) in some matters, but if someone from IBM or any of the others that are against MS, would say anything against MS/in support of EU, you’d take it as pure fact without bothering to consider what is actually being said and what consequences it will have.
Actually, it’s not only sad… It’s outright sickening…
This article is shit. Please don’t come with this kind of stuff from now on!!
Ireland, England and Great Britain in general never felt themselves as European countries.
England ans now Ireland today are islands subsidized and influenced by USA. They are part of the american empire. England even sent soldiers to Iraq following orders of Mr. Bush.
USA wants to live exploring its “intellectual property” and Microsoft is the best example of this fact.
Third war will be about “intellectual property” conflicts.
@Shiva
“Ireland, England and Great Britain in general never felt themselves as European countries.
England ans now Ireland today are islands subsidized and influenced by USA. They are part of the american empire. England even sent soldiers to Iraq following orders of Mr. Bush.
USA wants to live exploring its “intellectual property” and Microsoft is the best example of this fact.
Third war will be about “intellectual property” conflicts.”
Um, Spain sent soldiers. Um, Italy sent soldiers….
Very weak post, my friend. Everybody has opinions these days. Most of these opinions in this thread follow nationalistic lines. I guess everybody hates the global economy. Welcome to the 21’st century.
e.g. is he only quotes the peoples objection to Microsoft based on it ‘size and ubiquity’ – not a word about their doubtful competition strategies, all of the court decisions against their business practice, cases settled out of court, the extortion of the common user, the little man, contempt and anger for lack of security etc.
Let’s create a wiki for all of the usual OSS complaints about articles which support Microsoft or Microsoft-supported causes; then, instead of posting a lot of redundant stuff, we can simply link to the wiki once. Probably save a lot of server space. Here, I’ll start it off…
“He’s a shill on the MS payroll”
“He’s so wrong — he doesn’t understand the issues at all.”
“Patents/coppyrights/other IP are evil”
“Stallman is God”
“GPL cures cancer”
“Windows sucks, Linux rocks”
“Gates is the anti-Christ”
“Ballmer is a monkey-boy”
“MS is a criminal monopolist”
“Windows security is pathetic. I’ve had my Linux server running for 5,387 days”
/c’mon, add your own/
Hahaha thats pretty clever.