Microsoft I will pay $50 for Server OS and $1 per CAL :)

I feel the Bush administration has looked out for the Big corporations and definitely favored them and let them get away with a lot.

- "In 2000, US District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson ordered Microsoft to be broken up into two companies"
This was the same case where - among a number of other astounding transgressions - Microsoft was caught in a Perry Mason moment faking video evidence?

- "The US Department of Justice later dropped its efforts to split up Microsoft."
This is the same DoJ where the big controversy rages about its current head being a political puppet of the Bush administration who needs to be sacked for conflict of interest?
In turn, this is the same Bush administration which sacked the then head of DoJ who secured the comprehensive antitrust victory against Microsoft, followed by the fact that new Bush appointed instalment mysteriously dropped all actions against Microsoft, despite a comprehensive finding of facts against it? In response to this scandal, nearly half of the non-political employees at the DoJ resigned.

"Base Authentication Services (used to grant authentication to clients accessing Windows Server resources) are relatively expensive - as high as $17.50 per server seat."

When this agreement was first announced I predicted that Microsoft would use it to *increase* their lock in and make it harder for open-source software to compete, but I had no idea they would be anywhere near this ballsy.

I have some respect for microsoft. It demonstrates to us how a company should not behave, how the current patent system can be misused against the interests of the society and how innovation can be stifled in the name of innovation itself.

"disputing the company's rights to exclusivity over its own operating system."

If they don't hit that they aren't out there, that's the finest trolling bait we've seen in a while.

The EU bureaucracy in Brussels is a totally arbitrary, unelected, unaccountable gang of bureaucracts whose only purpose in life is to multiply their own power and perks.

There's no way that they will every stop harrassing Microsoft, because they resent the very idea that someone from outside is selling an operating system to Europe that they don't make themselves.

About all Microsoft can do is to try to string this out, because there's no way they are going to get justice in a system that doesn't understand the meaning of the word.

Anyone who defends Microsoft's right to require $17.50 per server seat for open-source software like Samba is either (a) completely ignorant of the subject and unqualified to comment, (b) uncritically opposed to free and open source software, or (c) a paid mouthpiece for Microsoft.

Which are you?

Resuna is either
(a) Has a fetish with presenting the same multiple choice options on forums over and over
(b) is studying for his SAT so he's got nothing but multiple choice on his mind
(c) Has a very short term memory so it's excusable that he posts the same multiple choice options 2/3rd's of a page down
(d) all of the above

(e) Screwed up editing a previous comment.

Let's rephrase that.

Anyone who maintains that MS is trying to charge anyone who uses Samba 17.50 IS "(a) completely ignorant of the subject and unqualified to comment".

And you might want to read the document authored by those who disagree with you who, by your words, must be" (b) uncritically opposed to free and open source software". But then, those folks are the SAMBA development group!

http://us1.samba.org/samba/ms_license.html
"The Samba Team wishes to reassure the Samba community that this document will not have any impact on the use or further development of Samba."

Oh... Thank goodness that the Samba folks are not complete idiots like you are.

You maintain that MS is a monopoly. It is not. At the enterprise level there are plenty of alternatives! And at the desktop level you are free to use any variant of Linux or OSX you like!

And I defy you to name ANY services at the server or enterprise level that are monopolized by MS! There are plenty of alternatives!

If you do not like MS, and you ARE perfectly free to not like them or their products, walk your talk and buy something else! But neither you nor the EU are entitled to tell them what they must charge for their product!

The choice is to buy it or to ignore it.

You sound like a junkie who blames the government for a habit of their own volition and for not providing them with free needles and junk!

I miss my free needles and junk...but now its not open :(

"As BetaNews stated previously, the ramifications of this claim go far beyond whether the EC would impose new fines on Microsoft - which would be at a rate of 3 million euro per day retroactive to August 1 of last year. The EC now appears to be accumulating the interoperability information Microsoft has given it, to perhaps mount a challenge to the very originality of Windows itself, disputing the company's rights to exclusivity over its own operating system."

While I do respect Nate and his writings and I agree that the break up of Microsoft is a possibility (albeit an extemely unlikely possibility), that above paragraph reads like it was written by a 2 year old.

'.....to perhaps mount a challenge to the very originality of Windows itself, disputing the company's rights to exclusivity over its own operating system' - What complete and utter twaddle!

... bwahaha!

>The EC now appears to be accumulating the interoperability information Microsoft has given it, to perhaps mount a challenge to the very originality of Windows itself, disputing the company's rights to exclusivity over its own operating system.

As much as I'd love to see THAT verdict go down, that's ridiculous.

It's a shame that the Judge Jackson was removed from the case and Microsoft saved from the absolutely needed split up in the first place.
The Republicans then didn't have the courage to push and order a Microsoft split-up like that of the '80s ordered by Reagan against the telcos monopoly at the time. The Democrats fool people into thinking that they are for a Microsoft split-up but during the Clinton Administration years they were the ones actually helping the Microsoft monopoly to get bigger and bigger by pushing Microsoft OSes in Federal buildings and so on...

It surely won't be the noglobal EU thing the one able or even with the will to split up Microsoft, they are just in for some money.. they want some "big and luxury presents"

The EU should apologize to Microsoft for all of the unnecessary trouble they've caused them and refund all of the money they illegally took from Microsoft. If the EU doesn't like Windows then they have every right to use an alternate OS. No one is forcing them or anyone else to use Windows or any other Microsoft product.

And Microsoft should go back to using protocols that everybody can use for free. Not the locked-in for dubious secret reasons proprietary stuff Microsoft is leveraging on top of us, but the open standard, free to implement protocols and file formats that their customers actually want.

If the "open standard, free to implement protocols and file formats that their customers actually want" were actually that important to MS' customers, they would have already "gone back to using [those protocols]" due to dropping sales.

"they would have already"

You say that like consumers have a choice.

When we did have a choice protocols were open.
Microsoft achieves monopoly and the protocols close.
The EU just wants choices again. I do too.

The whole purpose to this exercise is to allow people to use alternate operating systems.

That's like saying that if healthy food was important to poor people then they would have quit buying from the people selling them cheap unhealthy food, and they'd have gone out of business.

Except in this case, according to many people's opinions, the "healthy food" in this analogy is FREE.

Oh, MS is keeping you from using Linux, Unix, BSD, Mac OS, BeOS, OS X, OS2, FreeDOS, Solaris, and any of the countless other OSes I neglected to name? Or are you saying MS somehow magically closed the protocols that were open back "when we did have a choice"?

If you want to use a Mac or *nix then go ahead. No one is stopping you.

Those are all great choices. And will they all work together on a network! Used to be that Windows would work with them too. But now there are "trade-secrets", no wait ... scratch that, "patented" Windows server protocols that couldn't possibly work with a product from anybody except Microsoft.

The EU has ordered Microsoft to return our ability to connect our Windows machines to our Linux, Unix, BSD, Mac OS, BeOS, OS X, OS2, FreeDOS, Solaris, and any of the countless other OSes you neglected to name. We want back what Microsoft took.

And people currently aren't able to use alternatives? That's very strange because I use linux and I know plenty of people that use mac...all without the help of the EU...

(a) you don't understand that the "healthy food" is free
(b) you understand it's free but think people are addicted to buying "cheap unhealthy food"
(c) you analogy makes no sense
(d) all of the above

"But now there are "trade-secrets", no wait ... scratch that, "patented" Windows server protocols that couldn't possibly work with a product from anybody except Microsoft."

Weird...We have so many linux machines here that work with Windows for kerberos authentication, file sharing, and pretty much whatever we need to do.

But that can't be possible...You just said windows no longer has an ability to connect to linux...I'm going to have to make sure our network doesn't blow up tommorow morning!!

This is such a load of crap.

If I design/write a piece of code, and license that code to you for use, I can use any profit margin I choose.

'I' licensed it to 'you'

'You' payed for it.

Stop whining like someone just stole your bike.

MS should pull out of EU. This would spur better alternate OS development. Just remember Linux is still trying to catch Windows - and anyone that runs it, is handicapped with what can be accomplished, compared to a Windows/MS based machine.

"Pulling out of the EU" sounds like a silly knee-jerk reaction. Microsoft (or indeed any other big nultinational business) can hardly pull out just like that. For one they make far far far too much money for that remote possibility to happen.

personally I agree that MS should just pull out of EU...

granted their financial stake is too large to just leave outright.
But I wonder what would happen if they just stopped selling it there... keep support teams and such (financial support for this might require a *lot* of planning)...

but MS *has* to be keeping a running tab for the cost that the EU is dragging them through. if that cost isn't included in MS's document then at some point it becomes more costly to deal with them.

I would implement a 1 year probation... if they still feel MS is wrong after a year I'd consider a long term plan... I would probably try to time this with a new release of the OS... then obviously any copies activated there are also subject to lawsuits...

granted it's hasty but as it's been stated, no one is FORCING them to use it... they CHOOSE to because of the benefits associated.

the bigger risk (and perhaps what's holding MS back) is what would be the loss if they went 100% OSS and were *happy* with the results.

I will however add, that the list should only contain *new and updated* features... anything built in NT4 was priced for NT4... built in 2k (AD), priced in 2k... etc...

to an extent it plays towards EU's request of paying for innovation... I assume MS' document reflects this.

I've seen a couple comments that say that MS doesn't have to sell in the EU and that they need to obey the laws of the EU. I've also seen comments that say that EU customers don't have to buy MS products. Both are true.

While I am not a EU citizen, and not completely versed in EU law, I do think they are being unreasonable and that their requirements are unrealistic. It seems that no matter what MS does, they cannot comply with the EU's demands.

Wow, the EU refuses to be a chump for Microsoft. Good for them! robmanic said it well: if you don't want to follow the rules, then STFU and go home to Redmond. The EU doesn't need or want your monopolistic BS game being played there, because they're not going to let you get away with it like the conservatives (i.e., Bush admin.) do in Amerika.

You Microsofties are the biggest whining losers on the planet. Get a life.

If the EU wants to have it their way, don't whine about the price, buy something else!

It is the EU that is whining! Just like the Socialists to attempt to establish what someone else can charge for their product!

And what that establishes, contrary to the oh so many comments that it is a free market is that it is NOT a free market! And the EU Commission is exactly that which makes a mockery of it.

And MS is NO monopoly in the enterprise software game!

And it is amazing how quickly the 'Linux for the desktop' folks disappear when they have a chance to claim market space!

Isn't it strange that the EU Commission is not worried about how much a Porsche, Ferrari, BMW, or Bentley sells for in the US...

And it seems that the majority of the fools here have NO idea what a free market is. In a free market, a vendor can charge whatever they like, And the buyers can buy whatever they like. How about someone assuming responsibility for the choices.

If it is too expensive, buy something else. See how simple that is?

Microsoft isn't breaking any EU laws. The EU is upset because Microsoft is a monopoly. This is not illegal. It IS however illegal to abuse monopoly power which Microsoft has not done.

It's the EU that needs to get a life. They should refund all of the money they illegally took from Microsoft.

Let's see...Conservatives and Amerika.
Oh yeah, like the European Nazis and the current Socialist EU Commission who claims the right to control others products. But Big Brother, or in this case, Big Mommy has to protect the stupid Euros from themselves, as they are too stupid to buy a competing solution, of which there are MANY.

And the EU with their Socialist market control as opposed to a free market in America where you are free to buy or not buy MS products without whining and having your mother show up to protect you.

Yup, you sure understand economics and politics! Conservatives and market control. What an idiot.

But that's just like the whiny @ssed Socialists who are quick to claim control and rights to ownership over what others produce.

Poor whiny self-made victims...

Wow..... aren't we the bitter one? You really should sit and think about what is really bothering you.

Thats easy...simpletons confusing monopolies with "conservatives", "Bush" and "Amerika". The irony is that they are the ones supporting a free market economy within the context of worldwide BS trade protectionism.

And if we want to identify really neat modern totalitarianism, Europe is a good place to start! But thats right, presentation of that small fact is limited in the school curriculum in many countries there. Wouldn't want to traumatize the kids with the facts, would we?

But such is the state of education these days.

If for any reason the Euros don't like the product, they can exercise their option and not buy it!

But they have no legitimate right to say what can or cannot be charged for someone else's product.

So why are the socialists crying?

The irony is that socialist market control is thought to be 'so wonderful' despite MS's NOT being an enterprise monopoly. Europe is perfectly free to buy one of their own homegrown alternatives.

And the real irony is that I am not even a MS fan! But it is a market decision that is best left to each individual and company! They have choices in the marketplace. If they don't like the product, buy something else. But why exercise their own individual freedom when you can call Big Brother in the form of the EU Commission.

"It IS however illegal to abuse monopoly power"

Not only does Microsoft abuse monopoly power, they use anti-trust agreements to abuse their monopoly power.

Charging $17.50 a seat for Active Directory and Server Message Block authentication protocols is an abuse of monopoly power. It's a deliberate attempt to shut down the Samba open-source server software. It would be hard to find a clearer and more apropos example.

This is exactly what I predicted Microsoft would end up abusing this decision to do. Surprise surprise.

MS is simply listing the price it cost THEM to develop the code to do...

this can NOT be compared to *nix, as *nix code is usually licensed against selling... thus MS needs to spend resources REDEVELOPING it.

Microsoft has the right to charge whatever they want for their technology. The EU has no authority to tell a company what they can or cannot charge for a technology or product.

When you play in my yard, you play by my rules. If Microsoft wants to do business in Europe, they must obey European laws. They don't have to sell their products in Europe. Microsoft has certainly been the bully often enough.

You're damned straight MS doesn't need Europe! But tell all the businesses that they don't need MS software!

I think the best thing that could happen would be for MS to pull out of that market and then watch the companies come out of the woodwork and scream bloody murder at the EU commission for their asinine attempts at socialist market manipulation!

The funny thing is that NO ONE in the EU is forced to buy the products now! It is a free market! Right??? So if they are buying it, evidently they find sufficient value in it!

If the EU thinks Windows is so high priced, why not use Linux? Besides, the 'Linux is taking over the world' (but not the desktop) folks here can help them!

Besides, there are PLENTY of enterprise class environments that are better than MS! Just start with AIX and HP-UX!

What is absolutely hilarious is that if the product is over priced, no one needs to buy it, and thus the EU Commission is wasting their time.

Or is the EU Commission saying that the MS product is SO critical that the price must be reduced??? If so, it seems MS has the EU by the balls(as if they ever had any!) and their pulling out would leave the EU in a bigger mess then they perceive they are in now!

MS, pull out and let the EU weenies get just what they want! And then see who comes crawling to whom!

MS should obey EU law not obey EU Commission and Kroes.

The EU is nothing more than a whining bully. Leave Microsoft alone.

Or, how about the EU continues to enforce its laws within its borders?

If Microsoft doesn't like our laws, then they can pull out of Europe. That'd leave half a billion people for Linux to reach out to.

And half a billion people that would be very very disappointed with what they see.

And not to mention the thousands of banks, offices, major buildings and governments that run on Windows that would be umm how should i put this, f*cked if MS pulled out of EU.

You think if MS pulls out, the whole of EU will just switch to Linux or Mac OS X, please... All the major businesses and organizations have systems set up using Windows and if they were to lose Windows, their business would have to shut down and a whole restructuring would have to start to convert to another operating system.

And *obviously* Microsoft aren't that stupid to pull out of a major region like the EU, that'd be commercial suicide. Yes, the EU are being idiots (and this is coming from someone who lives in the EU area) but Microsoft aren't going to and do not want to pull out, simply because they make too much money from the area. Saying that they should pull out is a really silly attitude from people who do not understand economics at all.

Microsoft are doing right here, they are standing up to the EU and questioning their every step. This is what democracy is all about.

The EU is standing up to the bully. Microsoft stole their workgroup server interoperability and they want it back.

Microsoft is a public company. They can't just pull out of an entire country (or conglomeration of countries).

Their stock would tank, and the board of directors would not only be out on their arses, but they would probably be extradited to Europe on any number of charges that would probably be brought against them.

Lets get back to reality now folks.

Thanks.

The same remedy should be applied in Europe as the U.S. That is, instead of removing the judge from the case, the EU should be removed, and maybe broken up too.

I find the entire EU Commision 'socialist' board to be a complete joke.

Its one thing if they want to work out rate plans that they feel are equitable across various EU member borders, but to tell others what they can and can't charge is complete BS.

If they don't like the fees, they don't have to use it.

And after all, several of the major open source providers are headquartered in the EU. Use them! Besides, if foreign services are prohibitively prices, that should help their domestic service providers.

Its time more foreign providers tell the EU to shove it. Pull out and just watch the screaming of the companies in the EU for product! The EU Commission does not drive demand, but they can certainly be victims of it.

And if such services are withdrawn, just watch the rest of the world put pressure on them to prevent piracy in the face of overwhelming demand by business.

So EU, if you don't like the pricing, walk your talk and don't buy it! You claim to have choices, now get off your @sses and exercise something other than your mouths.

[ ] I understand what this is all about
[ ] I understand that MS was ordered to lay open specifications, then set fictional prices...

Don't fool a competition agency. It is not worth.

"I find the entire EU Commision 'socialist' board to be a complete joke."

Oh well.

While I am by no means I Microsoft fanboy (I use a Mac and would never go back to a PC), I think a breakup is unrealistic. Yes, MS is charging too much. Yes, MS can have some anti-competitive behavior. But I think the EU is way overstepping its purpose at this point. If MS were to pull their software from EU shelves, yes, it would hurt MS, but it would get a point across. The EU has no right whatsoever to tell MS that they must continue to sell their software in the EU.

And as to the originality of Windows, who cares if it's based on DOS? If you start taking those things apart, Windows is essentially a GUI for DOS, much like the Mac is a GUI for Unix, and KDE and Gnome are GUIs for Linux. They each add features to the core OS, and some apps will only run with that GUI installed. For instance, MS Word won't run on just DOS, iTunes won't run on just Unix, K3b won't run on just Linux or with Gnome only installed, and so forth. Windows is just as original as any other OS with a GUI.

OK, so maybe I got a little ranty there. But my point is, MS needs to be carefully considering their next move against the EU, and the same for the EU against MS. 'Twill be an interesting fight, friends.

I agree completely with what 'kidzmatter2me' said (I am a Mac user too). I feel that South Korea has done the exact same thing to Microsoft. I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft at some point just gets tired of other people trying to dictate to them how they sell their product and pulls out of that country.

It's a free market and people have other options beyond just Windows. I would love to see Microsoft pull out of a country, if for nothing else, to prove a point and stop these frivilous lawsuits against them just because someone doesn't like the way they sell their product.

If so, the EU Commission would run for IT independence. Very dangerous. Microsoft almost burned its credibility.

"Barely meeting a deadline to respond to the European Commission's Statement of Objections that was issued March 1, Microsoft today asked EU regulators what it should charge for Windows Server protocols, if they feel current prices are "unreasonable.""

It is not up to MS to "ask" a public authority. When MS thinks they can turn it into a Bazar they are wrong and they will pay the price. MS has to issue an offer.

Sure, MS should have the right to pull out of a country if they feel that business with that community is not going too well. Perhaps if the EU proposed a price list instead of saying "this isn't good enough. Fix it" and MS shooting back "ok, what do you call reasonable?" then it wouldn't make EU seem so bad.

On another note, count me as one of the Mac users as well :-).

If Microsoft genuinely does not understand what the EU wants, why do they wait until the last minute on everything? MS could have asked the day after the request what kind of prices the EU was talking about, but every single time they respond "barely meeting [the] deadline."

So MS should just keep guessing what the EU wants?

Jeez, it is starting to look like one of those annoying relationships where the woman is mad at the man because he didn't remember something, didn't say something, said something he shouldn't, screwed up in some other way without knowing it, etc... Now the girlfriend(EU) is mad at him(MS) thinking he should sincerely apologize for being in the wrong (in her opinion) without her having to tell him what she thinks he did wrong.

No, I am not having similar problems in my personal life. My wife doesn't play those games , it is one of the reasons I married her. :)

If Microsoft genuinely does not understand what the EU wants, why do they wait until the last minute on everything?
Maybe they thought they knew what the EU was asking and worked towards that goal, trying to tweak it as much as possible until the last minute (we are talking about an organization built around software). Heck, I don't think the EU know what they are asking for half the time. They just reiterate what MS' competition tell them to ask for.

The EU wouldn't miss one single breath if MS pulled out of the EU. MS would be the loser in the end of that scenario. And they know that. So MS should stop being so greedy and sell the damn software at the $3 its gonna offer to others.

*nvm*

No, that is MS spin and it seems they start to believe it themselves.

It is a public authority which ordered Ms to comply after a long trial, a kind of competition court.

They are not on the same level. Not at all.

You don't talk to a judge in that fashion. It is not "the EU". It was a highly formal proceeding initiated by competitors. Then Ms was ordered to comply and lay open specifications.

After long long "post-negotiations" to which the Commission kept good faith they finally lost passion. Then MS offered specifications to unreasonable prices while nothing was said at all about prices for interoperability information before. The commission set them a deadline. And they responded within the deadline. And that is what they say: "We need greater clarity on what prices the [European] Commission wants us to charge, and we believe that is more likely to come from a constructive conversation than from a formal hearing," Microsoft general counsel and senior vice president Brad Smith said.

Don't fool them. Just don't do it.

Oh, do you not understand the delaying tactics Microsoft are using?

Microsoft want to do business with us.
Microsoft are currently doing business with us.
The EU wants Microsoft to not break EU laws around anticompetitiveness, which Microsoft is currently doing.

Every single day Microsoft can delay, they keep making more money than they will after the settlement/agreement/ruling.

So, Microsoft are leaving everything until the deadline to maximise profits. Microsoft are being vague to maximise profits. It's called getting the ball into the opponent's court. Saying "what do you think is reasonable?" buys them another few months massive profit as opposed to saying "OK, fine, we'll do what you ask".

And Europeans aren't socialist, nomatter what you mad Americans believe ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_commission

The EU has other choices, so your logic is flawed they don't have to use MS.

The whole argument is the EU feels they should not have to pay fees to use someone elses technology.

The EU has no clue what they are doing let me point you to Windows - N , a colassal failure brought on BY the EU

The EU wants Microsoft to not break EU laws around anticompetitiveness, which Microsoft is currently doing.
Oh, does EU law dictate to all companies that they must license their technologies to others at a rate the EU likes?

You were the one that said MS has to issue an offer, and not ask the EC what their pricing should be. Now you say "No"; but "No" to what. Should MS be able to ask the EC or must they keep guessing until the come up with a number the EC likes?

"So MS should just keep guessing what the EU wants?"

MS should post all the protocol documents required by the settlement free online, with no charge or royalties. The EU is already bending over backwards by saying that they *can* charge for the documents they are required to publish. The idea that they should be allowed to use this as a way to further expand their monopoly by choking off open source projects is ... I don't know, there really are no words to cover the depths I'd have to plumb to describe it.

This isn't a case of a "bad relationship". This is a case of the guy who lost a court case trying to fast-talk the judge into handing him the decision anyway.

The judge should have told Microsoft "no fees" up front.

The EU is already bending over backwards for Microsoft by letting them charge "reasonable" fees for the documents they're required to publish. Instead, Microsoft came up with a fee schedule that completely locks out any open source projects... and THOSE are Microsoft's main competitors in the market.

Microsoft is so completely abusing the good will of the court that I can honestly not imagine how anyone who actually understands the situation could defend them, unless they were constitutionally opposed to the very idea of open source software.

EU law dictates that monopolies can't abuse their monopoly power, and if they do they can be required to take actions to remove their ability to abuse their monopoly power.

Microsoft is, here, in the supposed remedy that is designed to prevent them from abusing their monopoly power, attempting to abuse their monopoly power!

The term for this kind of shenanigans is "contempt of court".

You can go to jail for that.

"The whole argument is the EU feels they should not have to pay fees to use someone elses technology."

It's not the EU that would be paying the fees.

No, I am just opposed to open source software developers and organizations claiming they should be able to use any person's or organization's closed source or designs just because they want to use it. If the open source movement has such abundance of talent, why don't they just invent their own superior protocols and libraries.

Of course, that all assumes you believe that MS is a monopoly despite the growing base of OS X and Linux users.

"Free Market" is just that FREE, no government agency should be able to tell a company that it has to sell it's product at a certain price level or give it's product away so other companies can profit from it.
I'm no MS fan, but they are far from a Monopoly in any form, if they were you wouldn't be able to get Linux or mySQL, Open Office or Unix.
In a "Free Market" the consumer decides what they want, if you don't like MS or think it's too expensive then get one of the flavors of Linux they are free!