Feeds

Commission rejects MS server claims and demo

Day three: Commission puts the boot in

Security for virtualized datacentres

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. ®

Providing a secure and efficient Helpdesk

More from The Register

next story
IBM storage revenues sink: 'We are disappointed,' says CEO
Time to put the storage biz up for sale?
'Hmm, why CAN'T I run a water pipe through that rack of media servers?'
Leaving Las Vegas for Armenia kludging and Dubai dune bashing
Facebook slurps 'paste sites' for STOLEN passwords, sprinkles on hash and salt
Zuck's ad empire DOESN'T see details in plain text. Phew!
Windows 10: Forget Cloudobile, put Security and Privacy First
But - dammit - It would be insane to say 'don't collect, because NSA'
CAGE MATCH: Microsoft, Dell open co-located bit barns in Oz
Whole new species of XaaS spawning in the antipodes
VMware's tool to harden virtual networks: a spreadsheet
NSX security guide lands in intriguing format
prev story

Whitepapers

Forging a new future with identity relationship management
Learn about ForgeRock's next generation IRM platform and how it is designed to empower CEOS's and enterprises to engage with consumers.
Why and how to choose the right cloud vendor
The benefits of cloud-based storage in your processes. Eliminate onsite, disk-based backup and archiving in favor of cloud-based data protection.
Three 1TB solid state scorchers up for grabs
Big SSDs can be expensive but think big and think free because you could be the lucky winner of one of three 1TB Samsung SSD 840 EVO drives that we’re giving away worth over £300 apiece.
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.
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.