Read more on Cloud Computing
- Related Stories
-
Did Microsoft want to 'whack' Dell over its Linux dealings?
January 26, 2007 -
Year in review: Microsoft goes 'Live,' pushes Vista
December 21, 2006 -
EU: Microsoft compliance deadline a week away
November 15, 2006 -
Judge OKs most of Microsoft settlement
November 1, 2002
Vinje, a Norwegian-American who grew up in Kirkland, Wash., and formerly bought milk from the dairy farms of nearby Redmond decades ago, is in the thick of battle with Microsoft in Europe.
The 52-year-old Vinje, a partner in the London-based Clifford Chance law firm, is on the legal team representing the European Committee for Interoperable Systems (ECIS)--a coalition that includes industry titans IBM, Nokia, Oracle, Sun Microsystems, and others waging war against Microsoft for allegedly violating European antitrust laws.
Vinje, who handles European antitrust issues and intellectual property cases for Clifford Chance's Brussels office, spoke to CNET News.com about ECIS, how it is gunning for a win against Microsoft, and the reasons for a December update to its February 2006 complaint against Microsoft, which alleges the software giant continues to violate the European Commission's historic antitrust order of March 2004.
Q: Here it is, the eve of the launch for Vista and Office 2007. Why did ECIS look at forwarding its complaint to the European Commission at this point and time? Why not earlier?
Vinje: We filed our complaint with the Commission last February, over Microsoft's refusal to disclose their Office file formats (.doc, .xls, and .ppt), so it could be fully compatible and interoperable with others' software, like Linux. We also had concerns with their collaboration software with XP, e-mail software, and OS server software and some media server software with their existing products.
And in July, we updated our complaint to reflect our concerns with Microsoft's "open XML." (Microsoft's Office Open XML is a default document format for its Office 2007 suite.) And last month, we supplemented that information with concerns we had for .Net 3.0 (software designed to allow Vista applications to run on XP and older-generation operating systems).
There's been nothing interesting behind the timing. We just needed to take time to find out what the facts were and as the beta information came out, we were able to file our full complaint. You can make the argument that it's better to address these things before the product comes out, or it's easier to address them once a product is in the market.
How optimistic are you that the European Commission will take your concerns seriously and act on them?
Vinje: The Commission has been preoccupied with Microsoft's appeal (to the Court of First Instance) and implementing the remedies against Microsoft from the existing March 2004 order. Still, we understand the Commission has sent our latest supplement to Microsoft for comment.
We believe the Commission will take it seriously and give it the attention it deserves, given this is the same sort of behavior Microsoft previously engaged in. If the Commission decides to proceed to a statement of objections, I believe it will proceed more rapidly this time around.
Do feel a sense of deja vu with this latest complaint the ECIS has submitted to the Commission? Do you think it will ever end?
Vinje: The answer to that question lies in Microsoft's hands. I think part of their strategy is to wear everyone out--their adversaries, the Commission, the courts, the users. They use their vast resources to delay things as long as possible and to wear people down so they'll give up.
I think this is possible, but I also think the Commission is still very determined. Commissioner Neelie Kroes herself is very tough about applying the law.
Because the Commission has previously taken Microsoft to task on antitrust issues, are you expecting things to move much faster this go around with your complaint?
Vinje: What we hope for and what we expect from the Commission is that they intend to proceed much faster this time than last time, but, of course, that is allowing for all the procedural steps and processes. Things are different now than when they were initially when the commission acted in 2004. They have a dedicated team who has already been through the ringer, a very knowledgeable staff, and some legal principals that have been established. It's a completely different ball game in that regard.
Do you anticipate other trade groups joining the ECIS in their fight? And how long do you expect it will take for Microsoft to issue its response to your complaint?
Vinje: We have been communicating with other U.S. trade associations, consumer groups and open-source organizations in Europe. We are in a cooperative mode, but we have not made any formal alliances yet. I wouldn't exclude that yet from happening.
We expect Microsoft will be getting back to the Commission soon with a response. Typically, it takes one to two months for a company to respond, since there are no statutory requirements.
See more CNET content tagged:
Thomas Vinje, commission, antitrust, complaint, Microsoft Office 2007
34 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment (Log in or register)
"Vinje: We filed our complaint with the Commission last February, over Microsoft's refusal to disclose their Office file formats (.doc, .xls, and .ppt), so it could be fully compatible and interoperable with others' software, like Linux. We also had concerns with their collaboration software with XP, e-mail software, and OS server software and some media server software with their existing products..."; it appears to be quite simple, if one cannot ride the "war horse' you get thrown to the ground! The moral here: To fail to prepare to meet the competition is to prepare to fail at the competition!
Are you equating the ECIS with the EU? The EU is investigating the complaints of a consortium of companies that only includes on European company, Nokia. Is the EU bad because US companies are successful in getting a hearing on M$'s anticompetitive practices? Gimme some background on this sweeping generalization you have attempted to assert.
You see the EU thwarting commercial organizations with over regulation? If they do that what will happen to their tax base as the member states' GDP declines? Perhaps this is a good thing that will destroy the EU in the long run. (Bwahahaha!)
I notice that "a former Politburo member" has no name and in spite of being a former Communist official "swears" as to the veracity of the assertion that the Soviet Union's "socialist" infrastructure was "elitist". It makes sense to me that no one would own up to making that statement. But just in case: Do you have anything to back up these seemingly damning assertions? Or, like your postt, do they just stand on their own [lack of] merits?
Here's my take on it. If M$ is breaking the law and gets caught at it you are free to feel as bad as you want to about it. If not, you may organize a group of like-minded individuals to address this. Perhaps you can get the laws changed or perhaps you can get M$ to at least pretend to comply with existing laws so that they don't wind up in this situation in the EU, the US, Korea, etc.
In the mena time please continue to be upset. More is better.
FOSS is primarily concerned with freedom of the indavidual. Freedom see and modify source code. Freedom to run what programs you want and use them as you wont on your hardware.
By contrast, commercialized software is close to communist thought. Ideas belong to the state (microsoft) and you must pay the state to borrow there ideas. Program source belongs to the state (microsoft) and they are not showing you what's under the hood. The state decrease that we all upgrade our computer hardware and software so everyone must run out and buy Vista. The state decrease how we use our computers and dissallows use of our computers outside of what is approved (read the Windows end user license agreement). The state decrease that you, having paid for Vist, do not actually own it.. only the privaledge of running it on your hardware as they see fit.
I don't really care what OS you prefer and choose to use but if we're going to compair software development and business models; let's call a spade a spade and drop this FOSS is a socialist conspiracy fear mongering BS.
America isn't that special, it's only one part of the whole world yet 90% of the world computers are controlled by one company within one nation.
Shouldn't business surve it's clients rather then tell them how to behave?
What this fellow seems to be asking for is removing restrictions on the end user. They want file formats opened up. The file format is seporate from the program editing it. To keep closed file formats only locks-in your clients rather than keeping them based on product quality. Close file formats are like saying, here's a peice of paper but you can noly use the Microsoft brand pent to write and we'll need you to also buy the Microsoft brand glasses so you can read what you've then written.
Locking down a program used to perform a function is one thing. Locking down the outtcome of that function to your program only is completely different.
Similarily, they are asking for opening of protocols. The computer as a single unit makes sence but it ends at the network card. Your phone doesn't care what phone is on the other end of the call and they both work. Why should a computer on one end of the network cable care what is on the other. In this case, they are purposefully keeping network protocols and deamons closed to keep competition from writting a better Outlook instead of competing on the basis of quality.
;)
The EU wouldn't have lifted a finger against Microsoft if it wasn't for those US companies.
In my mind Microsoft deserve their lot. The US anti-trust case was a joke.
I think Microsoft should, considering their market share, allow rival application developers have equal access to Windows APIs.
Until Microsoft ruled the OS market, when competition thrived between various operating systems, making APIs, libraries available - giving every developer under the hood access to your OS - was what made or broke that OS.
If those rivals had not developed for old versions of Windows, if they had instead developed for OS2 or MacOS or Unix or DoubleDOS or PCMOS or Workbench or MultiTOS or whatever - Microsoft would not be in the position they are today.
They have benefited from the work of developers, then when they needed expansion from the OS market gradually used their dominant position and inside knowledge to take over the more profitable application markets. One of their most successful tactics was to take a rival's product, not copy it, but make something remarkably similar - but more efficient and with features no other developer could include, because Microsoft kept the implementation of those advantages secret.
Some would say that was the developers own fault for dealing with the Devil - but that doesn't make what Microsoft did any more correct under Anti-trust legislation. Legislation they were fully aware of when they made decisions to take over certain markets.
improvement and coherent standards that mean something across
all computer platforms.
Why should Microsoft or anyone get off the hook when it comes to
their behavior and performance, both on the ethical level and the
technical?
At this stage, "IBM, Nokia, Oracle, Sun Microsystems, and others" are just suing because they can't compete.
Yes, the others ARE suing or complaining or whatever because Microsoft interferes with the market process so that they can't compete based on the merits of their products. They want to have the edge Microsoft gained by CHEATING removed so that there's a level playing field--and then, may the best company win.
Skullduggery instead of competing on merits has been Microsoft's way of doing things from the very beginning. Microsoft has been found guilty in court of being a predatory monopoly, and in Comes v. Microsoft (the presently unfolding antitrust case in Iowa), evidence is coming out (most of it not new) that shows that Microsoft knew many times that they were going to be whupped in the marketplace unless they manipulated the market or undermined their competitors' development efforts. And they did.
The goal of ECIS and related groups in this is simple; to establish a level playing field where all can compete on the merits of their products. The idea of a level playing field scares the willies out of Microsoft--they couldn't compete under those conditions without radically changing the way they operate. So they fight tooth and nail to prevent it any way possible.
If any stockholders should be selling short, it should be Microsoft's. Open standards are coming, whether Microsoft likes it or not. And like the dinosaurs, they will have to adapt or die.
Companies are "litigating instead of competing" because Microsoft is NOT competing, they're breaking the law, and the other companies know full well that trying to compete is futile as long as Microsoft controls the OS.
How about getting Autodesk to open DWF?
How about opening QuickTime?
Or those are untouchable?
+group/2100-1012_3-6154067.html
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://developer.apple.com/documentation/QuickTime/QTFF/" target="_newWindow">http://developer.apple.com/documentation/QuickTime/QTFF/</a>
QTFFPreface/chapter_1_section_1.html
and if by any means you find that Autodesk or Apple are abusing
their monopoly position, you are a free citizen to issue a similar
complaint. If they would be breaking an American law, you
address yourself to the American court, if they are breaking the
EU law, please write to Neelie Kroes