We have covered most of the following points before, but here are some more perspectives, including Samba's.

From vnunet.com:

Microsoft's EU patent pledge incompatible with GPL

Linux vendors will be unable to license Microsoft's interoperability patents under the terms that were mandated by the European Commission, open source legal experts argue.

It is claimed that the the terms are incompatible with the General Public Licence (GPL), the licence that governs the Linux operating system.

From Glyn Moody:

I Was Wrong: Microsoft Won [in Europe's case]

I could feel it in my bones: the great victory of the EU over MS is a sham. Here's why.

Reuters present Samba's side which, despite some setbacks, has some strengths.

Samba is a non-profit organisation so a lack of profits could not kill it, making it the last real competitor standing.

Note, however, that by setting the terms as Microsoft did, it basically arranged the' killing' of the "the last real competitor standing." By spreading money around it is knocking Sun Microsystems and Novell off the case it can then fight even against Free software in total isolation. This connects very nicely with the recent Samba interview, whose transcript was put on Groklaw a month ago. Microsoft bought its way, not earned it.

"This is the 'reward' which Microsoft receives for breaking standards."What made this whole situation utterly disturbing is that Microsoft had corrupted standards deliberately. What did it receive in return? Or rather -- what did the consumer receive in return?

Now, having faced a company that corrupted the standards, everyone must be assimilated while relying on reverse engineers such as the Samba team. At the same time, money needs to be spent on patents (if not documentation as well).

This is the 'reward' which Microsoft receives for breaking standards. It not only elevates revenue, but it also saturates presence (monopoly). It does not get any more outrageous than this.