Federal antitrust regulators and Microsoft issued a joint status report Tuesday on the software giant's compliance with the 2003 final judgment on interoperability with third parties.
In the interim report, the parties focus on efforts by the U.S. Department of Justice to enforce the final judgments of the 2003 order and Microsoft's work on complying with those judgments.
The final settlement stems from a 2002 consent decree, which the court, in a ruling earlier this year, extended by two years. Under the settlement, Microsoft agreed to be subject to antitrust review for compliance of the consent decree, which calls for Microsoft to share its interoperability information with rivals and other third parties.
Microsoft and the Justice Department give their respective assessments in the status report, and the parties currently have a status conference scheduled for next Tuesday. (Here is a PDF of the report).
In the interim report, the Justice Department claims three issues have arisen that affect Microsoft's progress in improving the documentation it supplies to third parties. The documents relate to its Milestone schedule, including the last group of documents designed to cover an update to Windows Server 2008, or Longhorn, product.
Here are excerpts of those three issues raised by the Justice Department:
First, the TC (Technical Committee) determined that in the process of revising the technical documentation, Microsoft removed a number of protocol elements that were included in previous versions of the documentation. When this same issue arose last year, Microsoft and the TC discussed that Microsoft would not remove protocol elements from the documentation without first discussing it with the TC in order to ensure that there was no substantive disagreement. Plaintiffs are concerned that the same problem has occurred again. In some cases there may be perfectly valid and sufficient reasons for removing certain protocol elements (2), but it is important for the stability of the documentation that the TC review the proposed deletions before they occur, as Microsoft and the TC previously agreed.
Second, and on a related note, the TC has suggested to Microsoft that it would be extremely beneficial to the TC and licensees to create a mechanism for detailing changes between versions of the documentation. Currently, it is difficult to tell exactly what has changed when Microsoft releases a new version of the documentation. This slows down the TC in its work by making it difficult to evaluate revisions to the documentation and causes issues such as the one discussed in the previous paragraph, where it is difficult for the TC (and Microsoft itself) to determine whether protocol elements have been removed from the documentation. Licensees have also informed the TC that the absence of version-to-version change information complicates product development. Microsoft was receptive to the TC's suggestion and will work with the TC to develop an effective mechanism to track changes to the documentation.
Finally, at the beginning of the year Microsoft changed the schedule for publishing updated technical documentation from monthly to quarterly. The TC's experience with this change has not been positive, as it creates a longer lag time between the identification of issues in the documentation and the publication of fixes to those issues. Licensees have expressed similar concerns to the TC. The TC therefore raised this issue with Microsoft in a recent meeting, and Microsoft agreed to increase the frequency of publishing updates to the documentation.
And here is footnote (2) for the first issue of concern raised by the technical committee, which deals with the "valid and sufficient reasons for removing certain protocol elements":
2 For example, Microsoft or the TC might have discovered that a particular protocol element does not actually pass over the wire between a Windows server and a Windows client, but rather is merely internal within the Windows server and therefore does not need to be documented as part of the MCPP (Microsoft Communications Protocol Program).
The Justice Department further notes that as part of the original documentation plan Microsoft said it would produce to give an overview to third parties on how the MCPP protocols work together, the software giant developed a template for the system documents and will discuss potential modifications to the template with the technical committee.
To date, Microsoft has developed a list of 19 system documents it plans to create and an approximate schedule for producing the paperwork. Microsoft expects to publish drafts of the 19 documents by the end of March and a final version by late June 2009.
Microsoft's licensing policy for the interoperability information will be further tweaked, after the Justice Department raised several issues over the software giant's new patent license. The Justice Department wanted to ensure that future licensees had the "same legal rights under the license that existing licensees possess."
And in the issue of Vista's successor, Microsoft recently authorized the technical committee to review another early build of the Windows 7 operating system. And as the Windows 7 builds progress, the technical committee will conduct middleware-related tests to ensure Vista bugs don't reappear in Windows 7.
Microsoft, meanwhile, notes it's made progress in complying with the final judgment order of 2003. The software giant stated that although it has received seven complaints or inquiries since the last joint status report in late February, none of these issues is related to Microsoft's compliance obligations under the 2003 final judgment.
Since making its communications protocols available for free on its Web site, users pulled 146,000 downloads of the documents since the first of this month, Microsoft noted.
Also, 49 companies have licensed patents for the communications protocols since the final judgment, with 36 of the companies signing aboard for a royalty bearing license.
The software giant also noted it is working toward providing additional information on its protocol documentation.
Microsoft stated in the report on its progress in communications protocol licensing:
While Microsoft firmly believes that the current protocol documentation available to implementers enables interoperability with Windows and fully complies with the Final Judgments, in response to the Technical Committee's ("TC") request, Microsoft is undertaking a new effort to supplement the existing protocol documentation with additional "System" documents.
And on its progress in modifying the technical documentation, Microsoft notes it is currently examining ways to present changes to its various document versions in an efficient fashion, as well as working on ramping up the frequency of publishing protocol documentation from a quarterly cycle. Microsoft anticipates presenting its revised schedule in the coming weeks.
The software giant also addressed its progress in resolving technical documentation issues via protocol test suites, which tests newly rewritten protocol documentation; as well as its interoperability labs, which offers direct access to the software giant's product development teams and engineering staffs for technical support to test licensees' implementations of MCPP protocols.
To date the interoperability labs, which are offered free to MCPP licensees at its Microsoft Engineering Center, Microsoft completed an interoperability lab with one licensee in March and another in May.
"Microsoft received very positive feedback from licensees on both events," Microsoft stated in its status report.
Microsoft on Tuesday made more technical information available for XAML, a language for designing the user interface of Web and Windows applications.
The documentation is aimed at other software companies and developers who want to make products that can "read" XAML (Extensible Application Markup Language).
The added technical detail will allow servers from other companies to send information to clients written using XAML, Microsoft said. Non-Microsoft client software will also more easily read XAML.
The information is covered under Microsoft's Open Specification Promise, which is meant to protect third parties from patent infringement.
XAML is the markup language designers use to lay out an application's front end. Microsoft's Silverlight Web browser plug-in for displaying media can render XAML along with JavaScript and HTML.
It's also important technology in Microsoft's strategy to attract more application designers to its Expression line of products. XAML is a lingua franca that designers can use with Expression tools and developers can manipulate with Visual Studio.
The posting of additional technical information is part of Microsoft's ongoing efforts around interoperability with products from other vendors, including open-source software.
In a statement, Tom Robertson, Microsoft's general manager of interoperability and standards, said:
"Microsoft's posting of the expanded set of XAML format documentation to assist third parties to access and implement the XAML formats in their own client, server and tool products will help promote interoperability, opportunity and choice across the IT community. Use of the Open Specification Promise assures developers that they can use any Microsoft patents needed to implement all or part of the XAML formats for free, anywhere in the world, now and in the future."
On Tuesday, Microsoft's general counsel Brad Smith is scheduled to talk at the Open Source Business Conference in San Francisco and the company's open-source lab, led by Sam Ramji, is expected to make an announcement.
WASHINGTON--The judge presiding over Microsoft's U.S. antitrust compliance on Friday commended the company for recent steps designed to make its documentation more accessible to open-source programmers.
At a periodic court hearing with company and government attorneys here, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly said she found the changes "very interesting" and "dramatic." She also said the move "does seem to represent quite a change from Microsoft's previous approach over the years."
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
(Credit: U.S. District Court in D.C.)"I'm glad people aren't afraid to make changes when it's brought to their attention," she said during the meeting in her courtroom, which lasted a little more than an hour.
A few weeks ago, Microsoft unveiled a new "interoperability" strategy, which included publishing the documentation for the application programming interfaces and communications protocols in its "high-volume products" and vowing not to sue open-source developers who create noncommercial software based on its products. It also agreed to make protocols covered by its patents available for licensing on what it calls reasonable terms.
Previously, such documentation was available in a more limited form and only to licensees who signed agreements not to reveal the code to others. As part of its antitrust agreements in the United States and the European Union, Microsoft set up programs in which it licensed its communications protocols. During the past three years, it has increasingly been attempting to talk up standards support and interoperability and reach out to open-source developers.
Kollar-Kotelly's reaction comes in stark contrast to the way the move was perceived by European Union regulators. The European Commission reportedly told Reuters that the announcement "does not relate to the question of whether or not Microsoft has been complying with EU rules in this area in the past." The EC in late February hit Redmond with a record $1.35 billion fine, arguing Microsoft had charged unreasonable prices for licensing of its interoperability protocols and patents across the Atlantic.
Open source developers, for their part, had mixed reactions to the news.
So far, the company has placed some 30,000 documents online and recorded about 80,000 downloads during the past few weeks, Bob Muglia, senior vice president for Microsoft's server and tools unit told the judge on Friday. He said the decision reflects a "change in the industry" and increasing recognition on Microsoft's part that it can expand its business better if it doesn't close off its protocols.
"This really does represent, as you said, a very dramatic shift," Muglia told Kollar-Kotelly, later adding: "If we do it right, it can be good for our business."
Microsoft isn't out of Kollar-Kotelly's crosshairs yet. At the urging of state plaintiffs, she recently opted to extend her oversight period over Redmond by two years, until November 2009. On Friday, she said she hasn't ruled out the possibility of extending it further--the states, after all, had asked for a five-year extension, until 2012.
Stephen Houck, an attorney representing a group of state plaintiffs that includes California, said the plaintiffs view Microsoft's open-source accommodations as "moving in a positive direction" but warned the company would continue to undergo scrutiny.
"What is crystal clear," he said at Friday's hearing, "is Microsoft is still under various obligations flowing from the final judgment."
Fortune had the best headline in the a.m. to describe the latest Redmond reversal: Glasnost at Microsoft.
Catchy, but was it entirely accurate? More about that in a moment. Briefly put, Microsoft promised to ensure interoperability with competitors' offerings by publishing technical information about its own technology. At the same time, Microsoft said developers will no longer need to obtain a license or pay royalties.
Steve Ballmer: Finally getting the message?
For a deeper dive, here's the URL to our special coverage. Also, Erick Schonfeld over at Techcrunch had a post worth checking out.
The pledge triggered the predictable avalanche of press coverage. On the surface, at least, this amounts to a volte-face when you consider Microsoft's pugnacious history. So why did Microsoft conclude that it made sense to try and get along with everybody else in the big tech sandbox that is Silicon Valley?
As I read through Microsoft's Interoperability Principles, I was struck by a couple of things.
First, Ray Ozzie's fingerprints are all over this document. The Wizard of Oz, Microsoft's chief software architect, may be among the savviest technologists alive today, and it's been interesting to watch him navigate a huge, resistant bureaucracy. Since Ozzie's arrival after Microsoft acquired his company in April 2005, he's attempted with limited success to engineer a revolution from within.
In terms of vibe, at least, Ozzie has a keener appreciation of what developers and customers need than do the old hands at Microsoft. They talk the talk but still bring along a lot of baggage to any discussion about openness or interoperability. And for too long, the Microserfs' MO was kill, crush, destroy--and then issue a press release explaining why the targeted hit du jour was a good thing for all concerned.
Maybe it's because Ozzie is at heart the developer, par excellence, that he's pushed for a more pragmatic way to satisfy customer demands. He understands that the trend in software development is toward more composite applications. That is, programs built with feeds or the ability to be built using other apps. Along with data portability, these attributes now appear near the top of user wish lists.
Unfortunately for Microsoft, the company's bureaucracy has been slow to grasp that, horror of horrors, customers actually may want to take data from an Excel spreadsheet and pump the information into Google Maps. But from Ozzie's perspective, Thursday's announcement was a no-brainer. Enterprise customers get something they crave. As for developers, they receive needed help because this is where the software industry is heading--with or without Microsoft.
Maybe it's because Ray Ozzie is at heart the developer, par excellence, that he's pushed for a more pragmatic way to satisfy customer demands.
(Credit: Microsoft )Ozzie was once described to me as a technology optimist. While Ballmer, with his more global corporate-wide responsibilities, may focus on the risks of a step like this from a business perspective, Ozzie can play the role of house technology advocate, pointing out the new opportunities by making it easier for X to talk to Y. It's just that simple. The only question is why wouldn't Microsoft do it?
This may be the easy part. Microsoft also wanted to send a message to European regulators that it's a good corporate citizen. Judging from the European Union's initial reaction, Ballmer and Ozzie will be racking up frequent flyer points to sell Neelie Kroes, the EU's competition commissioner.
In a statement, the EU sniffed that while it would welcome any move toward "genuine interoperability," Microsoft has issued four other similar statements in the past. Not a gushing first reaction. Then again, consider the rancid history between Microsoft and the EU. It was only in October that Microsoft finally agreed to comply with elements of the European Commission's 2004 antitrust order that it had earlier termed entirely objectionable. But maybe old rivals indeed will decide to let glasnost inform their relationship, "going forward," as the MBAs are wont to say these days.
However the news finally gets interpreted across the pond, I wouldn't dismiss Ballmer's description of Thursday's news as "an important change." For once, he wasn't letting hyperbole get too ahead of the reality.
Microsoft's top executives on Thursday detailed steps they say will help the software giant comply with antitrust legal requirements and operate more harmoniously in a world of interconnected software.
As previously reported, Microsoft announced that it will publish reams of documentation around its communication protocols to make it easier for third parties to connect to Microsoft products.
It also pledged not to sue open-source developers who create noncommercial software based on Microsoft's protocols.
The measures build on previous commitments to interoperability, standards support, and dialogue with open-source developers that the company has made over the past three years.
These additional steps further formalize Microsoft's stated commitment to interoperability and recognize the changing technology landscape, said CEO Steve Ballmer, who hosted a teleconference with Chief Software Architect Ray Ozzie, General Counsel Brad Smith, and the senior vice president of Microsoft's Server and Tools division, Bob Muglia.
Executives said that the steps will help it comply with obligations dictated by the European Court of First Instance in September, as well as help Microsoft compete in a marketplace that increasingly values interconnected systems.
"In a more connected, services-oriented world...one of the greatest value-adds in some sense is what people do on the other end of the wire," Ballmer said.
He admitted that providing outside developers access to the same application programming interfaces that Microsoft engineers use--as Microsoft intends to do with Office 2007 by June--gives competitors a better leg up in some respects.
But opening up further lets third-party developers build products on top of popular Microsoft products, which ultimately benefits the company, he said.
"The combination of the changed environment, the new opportunities it presents for customers and developers adding value around us, there are risks that come with it. But we think, on balance, it's consistent with what we are doing anyway from a legal perspective, it's pro-customer, and net-net, it should add value for our shareholders," Ballmer said.
Ozzie made clear that the stepped-up commitment was a message aimed at Microsoft's own engineers who need to recognize that corporate data centers are a mix of different products and that end users care about sharing information more and more.
"This is a very important strategic shift in terms of how each and every engineer at the company views what their mission and job is," he said.
Microsoft executives did not specifically mention the Open Document Format standard, which is an alternative document format to Microsoft Office that is popular particularly with government customers concerned with long-term archives.
But they did say they will add APIs to Office 2007 to create add-ins for other document formats that will allow end users to save to another format by default. Often, the data that customers create outlasts the programs they were created in, which makes data portability increasingly important, Ozzie said.
In an interview, Microsoft's vice president of intellectual-property Horacio Gutierrez said Thursday's move was driven by a combination of regulatory requirements and "learning" that it had done regarding the commercial importance of interoperability.
He added that its covenant not to sue open-source developers makes a distinction between commercial and noncommercial software.
Companies that build products based on published Microsoft protocols will need to license patented Microsoft technology, similar to the way that Novell, Xandros, and other Linux vendors have done. Intellectual property will be available under reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms, and royalty fees will be low, Gutierrez said.
The moves were met with skepticism from traditional Microsoft antagonists.
The European Commission said that the announcement "does not relate to the question of whether or not Microsoft has been complying with E.U. rules in this area in the past," Reuters reported.
Lobbying group the European Committee for Interoperable Systems (ECIS) said "the world needs a permanent change from Microsoft's behavior, not just another announcement."
Michael Cunningham, general counsel of Linux distributor Red Hat, said that the announcement "appears carefully crafted to foreclose competition from the open source community" because it covenant not to sue only covers non-commercial open-source developers.
Others speculated that the timing of the move was meant to influence a vote later this month on whether Microsoft's Office Open XML format will be approved as a standard in an accelerated process.
Forrester Research analyst John Rymer said that he didn't anticipate dramatic changes in how Microsoft already operates, but the changes should improve product interoperability.
Specifically, Microsoft will need to document when it creates proprietary extensions to existing standards, something which has "driven people nuts" in the past, he said.
"When you rip this all apart, what we're seeing is Microsoft responding to market demand, to be more open and play better with others," Rymer said.
The moves are also an elevation within Microsoft of the work done by Microsoft's open-source and interoperability advocates, including Bill Hilf, general manager of platform strategy, and Sam Ramji, who is now director of open-source technology strategy.
Their work to appeal to open-source developers with documentation and the adoption of open-source practices has gone on even though CEO Ballmer has never appeared fully comfortable with the open-source movement and interoperability.
"This announcement is saying that the top executives see the value of the interoperability work they've done and that they're ready to institutionalize some of the principles they've been operating under," Rymer said.
Microsoft's pledge to truly interoperate with the rest of the planet, including open-source developers (both commercial and community), leaves two clear victors in the Linux camp: Red Hat and Ubuntu. While Novell capitulated to Microsoft's early demands for a patent stooge, Red Hat and Ubuntu stood firm.
Today, they, like the rest of the industry, got their due: a truly open pledge for open APIs, open protocols, and data portability from Microsoft, as well as what appears to be fair and reasonable terms for patent grants/licenses.
Where does this leave Novell?
... Read moreIBM continues to make waves, this time announcing:
IBM is granting universal and perpetual access to intellectual property that might be necessary to implement standards designed to make software interoperable. IBM will not assert any patent rights to its technologies featured in these standards. The company believes its move in this space is the largest of its kind....
Among the technologies included on IBM's list, accessible here, are various standards pertaining to SOAP, SAML, XML Schema and Service Component Architecture. WS-* specifications are featured as well.
Bob Sutor writes on his blog:
... Read moreI was reading the latest issue of Mac|Life tonight (I liked it better as Mac Addict, by the way), and it struck me how dependent Apple is on Microsoft. For all the cool things that come with Mac hardware and OS X, a large swath of the Mac user population would be crippled or wiped out if Microsoft decided to stop supporting Office for Mac.
The Mac faithful (of which I am part) won't like to hear this, but it's true. OpenOffice is an excellent program (It actually is now--three years ago it was rubbish), but many of us simply couldn't use it "in production." Sure, I could run Office for Windows in Parallels' coherence mode (and almost certainly would), but that's an unnecessarily roundabout way of solving something best done directly.
This is a relatively small problem for Mac users, right? I suppose so. The same thing, however, is true in the enterprise. Many prefer to run Linux for an increasing array of server-based applications. But they don't want to be stranded, just as I would be on my Mac without Office. Net net: interoperability is a Very Good Thing. It's good for open source, but it's also good for Microsoft (and everyone else, because no one has a complete lock on any particular area of enterprise software).
All of which makes me wish we could, as an industry, talk about interoperability with more candor. More honesty. This isn't a dig at Microsoft, though it has been guilty of conflating patents (a desire to get paid) with interoperability (a desire to get along). The two don't necessarily go together.
... Read more- prev
- 1
- next
