Re: [Patents] Re: Mario Monti rebuttal?

[Serge Marelli <serge.marelli@linux.lu>]

Hi,

In all this you seem to have missed one thing, from what I know, this is
only about the Win2k issues, there seems to be a second complaint (made
by the CCIA) about something in WinXP, which the Commission will be
studying as well and which may lead to a similar decision.

This decision, presently could set a trend, could well be a precedent
based on which other decisions may be taken in the future.
MS will fight this in court (ECJ, European Court of Justice), because,
should the ECJ reject this decision, it would be a precedent just as
well, one in favour of MS.

I hope the decision will stand and we'll have one precedent concerning
behaviour of SW companies and SW giants...  it's a first step.

Serge


On Thu, 2004-03-25 at 00:41, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-03-24 at 23:32 +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 2004-03-24 at 22:40, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
> > > However, I see no fine, but a better hidden 'pat in the back, again do
> > > it not'. Let's see:
> > > 
> > >   a) they have to have a copy of Windows winthout Media Player
> > 
> > That would be useful, and would set a good precedent too. I don't think
> > it's necessarily a small thing.
> 
> Yes, but what is important is the rest.
> 
> > >   b) they have to make public the documentation of protocols and
> > >      document formats
> > >   b1) however they may charge RAND if they have patents
> > 
> > I'm not sure about that. The Register are reporting:
> 
> Don't read the news. There's a massive effort of misinformation.
> Read it it from the wolf's mouth:
> 
> http://europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?p_action.gettxt=gt&doc=IP/04/382|0|RAPID&lg=EN&display=
> 
> 
> > Which seems to imply that RAND is not necessarily acceptable. I haven't
> > looked at the judgement myself - don't have the time :( - but there do
> > seem to be some teeth in it.
> 
> vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
> To the extent that any of this interface information might be protected
> by intellectual property in the European Economic Area(6), Microsoft
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> would be entitled to reasonable remuneration. The disclosure order
> concerns the interface documentation only, and not the Windows source
> code, as this is not necessary to achieve the development of
> interoperable products.
> 
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> This reeks of patents... notice how they make a distinction over
> copyight by not requiring access to source code.
> 
> 
> > > To the c) if a) and b) are not fulfilled, fine of 497 Million EUR,
> an amount
> > >      some say is not significant for Microsoft.
> > 
> > No, the EU PR is clear that the fine is "in addition", not reliant on MS
> > complying with remedies a & b. MS *has* to do a), b) and also pay the
> > fine.
> 
> You're right. I was so shocked with the rest that I misread that part.
> 
> > > I believe this should be brought to the proper authorities. This is a
> > > scandal IMHO.
> > 
> > Personally, I think it is as strong as we could hope. The precedent of
> > the media player is important, and the documentation might be useful. I
> > think it's also something that they can litigate fairly quickly and will
> > still be relevant when the remedies are affirmed (as they ought to be).
> 
> I think it's is very little more than the US version of 'pat in the
> back', after all there is some anymosity towards the US, and this _is_
> worse (only a little, though).
> 
> Rui
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Serge Marelli, Luxembourg
  E-mail : serge.marelli@linux.lu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 LiLux, Luxembourg LUG : http://www.linux.lu/
 Defending Innovation against Patent Inflation  http://swpat.ffii.org/