Feeds

Commission rejects MS server claims and demo

Day three: Commission puts the boot in

Beginner's guide to SSL certificates

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. ®

Beginner's guide to SSL certificates

More from The Register

next story
The cloud that goes puff: Seagate Central home NAS woes
4TB of home storage is great, until you wake up to a dead device
Azure TITSUP caused by INFINITE LOOP
Fat fingered geo-block kept Aussies in the dark
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
Intel offers ingenious piece of 10TB 3D NAND chippery
The race for next generation flash capacity now on
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
Astro-boffins start opening universe simulation data
Got a supercomputer? Want to simulate a universe? Here you go
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.
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.
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.
Getting ahead of the compliance curve
Learn about new services that make it easy to discover and manage certificates across the enterprise and how to get ahead of the compliance curve.
Storage capacity and performance optimization at Mizuno USA
Mizuno USA turn to Tegile storage technology to solve both their SAN and backup issues.