FSFE/fsfe-website
25
31
Fork 91
Code Issues 65 Pull Requests 5 Wiki Activity

updated the leaflet. Please test and report any issues to gerloff@fsfeurope.org

Browse Source 
svn path=/trunk/; revision=27718
This commit is contained in:
gerloff 2014-01-28 12:58:51 +00:00
parent fb83c060ea
commit aef905a70b
1 changed files with 53 additions and 47 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

100
activities/ms-vs-eu/leaflet-ms-vs-eu.en.xhtml
View File

@ -12,61 +12,68 @@
<p class="background">
Europe's most important antitrust action in the software field
was the European Commission's case against Microsoft. The
Commission launched the case in 2004. FSFE participated as a
"third party", providing expert input on Free Software,
was the European Commission's case against Microsoft, running
from 2004 to 2007. FSFE participated as a
third party, providing expert input on Free Software,
interoperability and competition. We worked closely with the
Samba team, which develops a Free Software alternative to
Microsoft's proprietary workgroup server.
Our most important achievement was to make sure that Free
Software developers could actually use the interoperability
information, which Microsoft was forced to release, to build
competing products.
Microsoft's proprietary workgroup server.
</p>
<p class="background">
The European Commission imposed a record fine of EUR 497 million on
Microsoft. In 2012, the European Court of Justice ruled that
Microsoft would have to pay another EUR 860 million for failing
to comply with the Commission's decision.
</p>
<h2>Representation of developer's interest</h2>
<h2>FSFE represented developers' interests</h2>
<p>
FSFE played two key roles in this case. We represented the
interests of Free Software developers. In our official role as
Intervener, we pushed the European Commission to reject any royalty
requirements that would be incompatible with Free Software. We also
argued constantly for the publication of useful technical
documentation and against lock-out of Free Software based on arbitrary
manipulations of formats and standards.
FSFE played two key roles in this case. We represented
the interests of Free Software developers. In our
official role as Intervener, we persuaded the European
Commission to reject any royalty requirements that
would be incompatible with Free Software. We also
argued constantly for the publication of useful
technical documentation and against lock-out of Free
Software based on arbitrary manipulations of formats
and standards.
</p>
<p>
FSFE's most important achievement was to make sure that Free
Software developers could actually use the interoperability
information which Microsoft was forced to release to build
competing products.
</p>
<h2>Incorruptible</h2>
<p>
Second, FSFE was a public interest organisation which
could not be bought
off. The case began with many companies giving testimony of Microsoft's
breaches of antitrust regulation, but one by one these companies made
deals with Microsoft and withdrew from the case. FSFE and SIIA were the
only two organisations that pursued this case from start to finish. We
were later joined by ECIS, who did extraordinary
FSFE was one of only two public interest organisation which
Microsoft could not buy off. The case began with many
companies giving testimony of Microsoft's breaches of
antitrust regulation, but one by one these companies
made deals with Microsoft and withdrew from the
case. FSFE and SIIA were the only two organisations
that pursued this case from start to finish. We were
later joined by ECIS, who did extraordinary
work. Without this sustained support, the Commission
would probably not pursued the case as decisively as it did.
would probably not pursued the case as decisively as
it did.
</p>
<h2>Getting interoperability information</h2>
<p>
At the heart of this case was that the European Commission would require
Microsoft to publish interoperability information. Comparable to
dictionaries and grammar books for human languages, this type of
information is necessary for non-Microsoft software, such as Samba
running on GNU/Linux, to communicate and function fully within existing
client-server Microsoft networks.
</p>
<p>
Previously, the Samba developers were forced to
painstakingly gather this information by protocol
analysis alone. <i>The interoperability information was not secret
because it was valuable. It was valuable only because
it was secret.</i>
At the heart of this case was that the European
Commission would require Microsoft to publish
interoperability information. This type of information
is necessary for non-Microsoft software, such as Samba
running on GNU/Linux, to communicate and function
fully within existing client-server Microsoft
networks. <i>The interoperability information was not
secret because it was valuable. It was valuable only
because it was secret.</i>
</p>
<h2>Ruling confirmed at all levels</h2>
@ -77,20 +84,19 @@
Georg Greve and other people acting on FSFE and
Samba's behalf, the Commission's decision that
Microsoft had breached competition rules was upheld at
the highest level. In June 2012, the European Court of
Justice confirmed the record EUR 860 million fine
imposed on Microsoft by the Commission for the
company's anticompetitive behaviour.
the highest level.
</p>
<h2>Interoperable applications now possible</h2>
<p>
Information has now been published and is being used by the developers
of Samba and many other projects to improve network interoperability
for Free Software applications. This facilitates migration to Free
Software. The court rulings have also set important precedents
regarding unacceptable business practices.
Information has now been published and is being used
by the developers of Samba and many other projects to
improve network interoperability for Free Software
applications. This facilitates migration to Free
Software. The court rulings have also set important
precedents as to what business practices are
considered acceptable.
</p>
<address>