Feeds

Commission rejects MS server claims and demo

Day three: Commission puts the boot in

Secure remote control for conventional and virtual desktops

MS v EC The Court of First Instance reconvened this afternoon to hear the commission’s defence of its anti-trust decision imposed on Microsoft in 2004.

The commission’s barrister Mr Whelan, in a blistering performance, told the court the two sides agreed on one thing - that the hearings of the last two days on Media Player had parallels with the server arguments in that it was another example of Microsoft leveraging its “super dominant” position in desktop operating systems to another area.

Whelan said Microsoft’s refusal to give rival firms protocol information after 1998 in an industry where that is normal practice created consumer harm in terms of denial of choice, stifling of innovation, and protection of Microsoft’s near monopoly of desktop operating systems.

After a brief explanation of terminology and network infrastructure, he said the commission accepts that there is some interoperability between machines running different operating systems, but that it was a question of degree. He reminded the court that at issue was interoperability of workgroup servers, not servers or computers more generally.

He said Microsoft was interested in interoperability before 1998 because its product was in a minority position. When this changed, it refused to provide the necessary information. Microsoft originally licensed its API’s to AT&T, which licensed it to Sun.

Whelan said Microsoft's claims of five ways to achieve interoperability were really three, and none of these were enough to allow effective competition. Using open standards like LDAP does not provide enough interoperability for domain controllers. Adding client side software is not sufficient because it involves extra expenses of installation and maintenance. Whelan said adding client side software would cost about the same as buying a Windows server.

The third method, reverse engineering, is too slow and uncertain of success. Samba version 3 was released in 2003 to address the demands of Windows 2000 and only allowed a machine to be recognised as a member server not as a domain controller.

On this morning's demonstration of Centrify’s software, Whelan said it did not allow a server to be considered a domain controller by Windows. He also noted that since the product came to market after the decision was made, it was not relevant to Microsoft’s claim that the commission decision was wrong when it was made.

Whelan further denied that the protocols the commission was demanding would allow rival firms to “clone” Microsoft machines.

Whelan said: “We are only talking about the rules of interaction between operating systems, no more than that. Rules of interaction refer to the structure of messages and reactions to such messages…. Source code is the implementation of a specification and you can’t create code from specifications.”

The fear of cloning was: “A smokescreen of emotive jargon.” he said.

Microsoft’s claim that protocols are protected by patent could only be proved by Microsoft, which had not substantiated the claim. Whelan said if protocols were covered by such patents, then presumably Samba was in breach of them.

Whelan said the elimination of effective competition is not incompatible with the presence of minority players in a market.

Whelan then turned his attention to the “mighty Linux”. He said even if Linux had a market share of between five per cent and 15 per cent at the time of the decision, it was made up of many different distributions so any claim of market share must be further divided. Whelan said: “It’s a reshuffling of the fringe, but a fringe it remains.”

In the only joke in a heavy afternoon thick with involved references to various kinds of competition, copyright and patent law court president Bo Vesterdorf recommended Mr Whelan rest his voice over the evening.

The court reconvenes tomorrow morning at 9am to hear from the interveners on behalf of the commission. ®

Remote control for virtualized desktops

More from The Register

next story
Azure TITSUP caused by INFINITE LOOP
Fat fingered geo-block kept Aussies in the dark
NASA launches new climate model at SC14
75 days of supercomputing later ...
Yahoo! blames! MONSTER! email! OUTAGE! on! CUT! CABLE! bungle!
Weekend woe for BT as telco struggles to restore service
You think the CLOUD's insecure? It's BETTER than UK.GOV's DATA CENTRES
We don't even know where some of them ARE – Maude
BOFH: WHERE did this 'fax-enabled' printer UPGRADE come from?
Don't worry about that cable, it's part of the config
Want to STUFF Facebook with blatant ADVERTISING? Fine! But you must PAY
Pony up or push off, Zuck tells social marketeers
Oi, Europe! Tell US feds to GTFO of our servers, say Microsoft and pals
By writing a really angry letter about how it's harming our cloud business, ta
prev story

Whitepapers

Why cloud backup?
Combining the latest advancements in disk-based backup with secure, integrated, cloud technologies offer organizations fast and assured recovery of their critical enterprise data.
Getting started with customer-focused identity management
Learn why identity is a fundamental requirement to digital growth, and how without it there is no way to identify and engage customers in a meaningful way.
5 critical considerations for enterprise cloud backup
Key considerations when evaluating cloud backup solutions to ensure adequate protection security and availability of enterprise data.
Reg Reader Research: SaaS based Email and Office Productivity Tools
Read this Reg reader report which provides advice and guidance for SMBs towards the use of SaaS based email and Office productivity tools.
Simplify SSL certificate management across the enterprise
Simple steps to take control of SSL across the enterprise, and recommendations for a management platform for full visibility and single-point of control for these Certificates.