FSFE
/
fsfe-website


			
							123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116
							<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>

<html newsdate="2011-05-25"> 
  <head>
    <title>FSFE in Samba case: Microsoft's defiance backfired</title>
  </head>
  <body>


  <h1>FSFE in Samba case: Microsoft's defiance backfired</h1>


  <p newsteaser="yes">Luxembourg, May 25 - FSFE played a key role at a Microsoft hearing
  before the European Union's General Court on Tuesday, helping explain
  the intricacies of Free Software servers.</p>

  <p>The hearing was called to consider Microsoft's challenge to a EUR 899
  million fine imposed by the European Commission in 2008. Microsoft had
  failed to carry out remedies imposed for its violation of EU antitrust
  law. A ruling is expected for later in the year.</p>

  <p>Microsoft was required to provide interoperability information that
  would enable others to hook up to its products so they could compete
  with its workgroup servers. Key among those was the Samba team, which
  is the only surviving competitor in the workgroup server market. Only
  after a European Union court acted in 2007 to uphold nearly all of the
  Commission's 2004 decision did Microsoft finally meet the Commission's
  requirement to comply.</p>

  <p>"In order to compete, the Samba team only needed the mundane
  information about how Microsoft computers talk to each other," said
  Tridgell. "There is nothing innovative here. All the innovative bits
  are either already published by Microsoft's own researchers, or are
  contained in the Microsoft program source code – and we have no
  interest in seeing that. The innovation certainly isn't in the
  protocol specifications."</p>

  <p>Tridgell appeared before a panel headed by Chamber President Nicholas
  James Forwood of Britain, which also included judges Franklin Dehousse
  of Belgium and Juraj Schwarcz of Slovakia. Microsoft, the Commission,
  and outside intervenors on both sides were also represented. FSFE and
  the Samba team were represented by lawyer Carlo Piana.</p>

  <p>The problems date back to the Commission's 2004 decision that
  Microsoft should release interoperability information. After that, the
  company played for time and waited three years to comply with the
  Commission's demands. Explaining the significance of Samba for a
  competitive software market, Chamber President Forwood said: “Samba is
  the funnel through which the effects on the market will be produced.”</p>

  <p>Microsoft contended that the information it had to provide was
  valuable and innovative, and originally sought to charge high prices
  for it. Tridgell demonstrated that the valuable information had
  already been revealed by Microsoft in research papers and other public
  fora. By contrast, the information that Samba team needed to
  interoperate with computers running Microsoft Windows was neither
  original nor innovative.</p>

  <p>“Microsoft didn't keep this information secret because it was
  valuable; the information was only valuable because it was kept
  secret,” Piana told the Court on behalf of FSFE. He said it let
  Microsoft preserve its dominant position, because no other software
  was able to talk to the company's systems. “The company used these
  three years to further entrench its dominant position in the market.”</p>
   
  <p>“Microsoft is acting like a gambler who doubled up on a losing bet,
  and now wants his money back,” said Nicholas Kahn, the representative
  of the European Commission. By waiting three years before complying
  with the Commission's decision while the clock on the fine was
  ticking, Microsoft set the stakes very high – and finally lost.</p>

  <p>“In this case, Europe's competition regulators have shown their
  bite. We hope that the court will uphold the fine and make it clear
  that companies in Europe have to play by the rules,” said Karsten
  Gerloff, President of the Free Software Foundation Europe. “FSFE does
  many things to help foster the growth of Free Software. We're proud to
  help make the case for Free Software in a forum such as this, where we
  believe we are providing a public service.”</p>

  <p>Workgroup servers handle tasks used in small groups – printing,
  signing in, and allocating permission to access particular files. The
  Samba project not only provides an alternative to Microsoft's
  workgroup server. It has come up with an alternative that is better in
  many respects. For example, the Samba team used the trivial
  information provided by Microsoft to build an innovative system that
  runs on very small, cheap computers -- something that Microsoft's
  software cannot do.</p>

  <p>“The hearing established that Free Software is central to restoring
  competition in the workgroup server market,” says Piana. “Everyone
  agreed to this, including the judges. This case matters because it
  highlights that interoperability is more important than a company's
  interest in keeping its dominant position.”</p>
  
  
  </body>
  
  <tags>
    <tag>front-page</tag>
    <tag>Samba</tag>
    <tag>ECJ</tag>
    <tag content="Software Patents">patents</tag>
    <tag>Microsoft</tag>
    <tag>Microsoft</tag>
    <tag>eu</tag>

  </tags>

<translator>mdim</translator>
  <timestamp>$Date$ $Author$</timestamp>
</html>
<!--
Local Variables: ***
mode: xml ***
End: ***
-->