Bonum Certa Men Certa

Microsoft's Attitude Towards Interoperability Versus Standards -- One Year Later

[Note: some of the claims made here may be out of date, but the principles remain valid.]

"Interoperability" has become a weasel word. The word is regularly used to insinuate that two (or more) computer systems should work very well, but they usually work well for the wrong reasons. The method adopted to make these systems work is flawed. This approach monetizes something that should be free and something which typically requires no research and development whatsoever. It is an unfortunate case where the role of standards is being ignored and replaced.

When discussing interoperability between products, restrictive conditions such as patents and licensing agreements are often kept out of sight. In a similar fashion, when discussing software patents, their controversial nature is typically concealed under an 'umbrella' called "intellectual property". This leads to unnecessary confusion and has software patents honored in countries where such patents are fundamentally against the law.



Eyes on Europe



EU and Polish flagA couple of months ago in Europe, an agreement was announced between the European Commission, spearheaded by Commissioner for Competition Neelie Kroes, and Microsoft, which had just lost its antitrust appeal. The agreement embraced a route to further saturation in the server market, but rather than insisting on the use of standards, it seems to have drifted in another direction, which involved interoperability rather than open standards.

But Wait! What About Samba and the GNU GPL?

The agreement in Europe might stifle competition rather than spur any. It does not appeal to Free software developers and it is intrinsically incompatible with the most widely used software license in the world (GNU General Public License). This essentially leaves out in the cold what Microsoft has considered its #1 threat for many years.

“With the European Commission's agreement, a great concern arises.” The Samba project, which is GPL-licensed, enables several operating systems to interact with Microsoft Windows. Windows is ubiquitous, so this is essential. Protocols for file and printer sharing, for instance, are very prevalent in a form that designed by Microsoft many years ago. None of this design was standardized or published openly, so reverse-engineering work was needed to bridge a critical gap. This made Free software, such as GNU/Linux, more viable in the enterprise.

With the European Commission's agreement, a great concern arises. Suddenly, reverse-engineering endeavours that so many people rely on can be made subjected to the wrath of software patents (and thus royalties). Ironically enough, Europe itself does not honor software patents, yet it seems to have blindly accepted what Microsoft insists on. There is a great danger here -- the danger of letting standards be neglected and crucial consensus be decentralized.

Let us look at the importance of standards and then return to the issue at hand. This issue is unlikely to go away unless the European Commission changes its mind and its decision, thereby acknowledging its misunderstandings.

Why Are Standards Important?

In a world where diverse mixtures of technologies exist, products need to communicate. They need to interact with one another in order to handle complex tasks and for users to achieve their goals. The consensus has usually been that in order for products to communicate, industry leaders and field experts should convene and agree on a set of rules. They should agree on a single uniform method (or a set thereof) that will enable products to cooperate with one another. This is what standards are all about.

“By adhering to standards, communication with other products can be assured. ”Companies have plenty or reasons to like standards. Universal standards make development much easier and they facilitate integration with other technologies. By adhering to standards, communication with other products can be assured. Rather than test and design 'bridges' (or 'translators', or lossy 'converters') for each pair or products, design can be matched to a written, publically-available and static standard. It makes life easier for both software development companies and companies that consume technology, i.e. those that actually use the products and whose requirements matter the most.

What happens, however, when one company deviates from the standard in pursuit of more control? Capitalization is dependent upon the ability to show that something unique is being offered. Standards, nevertheless, are about uniformity, not about being unique. Therefore, companies that want a greater level of control over customers are more likely to ignore standards, but the situation is not quite so simple.

In order to ignore a standard, it takes a lot of aggression. It also requires a market share large enough to abolish or at least fight against the standard, which is backed by many parties, not one. With monopoly control, standards are pretty much defined by the monopolist. They can be changed and extended at any time without causing much interference. However, such use of power can also push rival companies off the cliff. At the end of the day, this hurts consumers who are left without choice and have little control over pricing and upgrade pace.

The Symbiotic Relationship Between Standards and Openness

Free open source software enjoys a good resemblance to the notion of free and open standards. Both are available for viewing and they encourage participation. Free open source software tends to embrace standards for a plethora or reasons. Proprietary software, on the other hand, does not expose its underlying behaviour. Quite often, its value lies in behaviour that is hidden. The software protects (in the ownership sense) certain knowledge, so transparency is neither an option nor a priority.

Standards play a role in prevention of vendor lock-in. They facilitate choice and they encourage greater diversity in the market. Adversity to standards is not only motivated by financial value that can be found in restriction on choice, i.e. imprisoning the customer. It is also motivated by the ability to extract revenue directly from competitors. That is where software patents and so-called "intellectual monopolies" serve as a dangerous new element to keep on eye on. They have become a curious phenomenon in the software world because they are fearsome to many and beneficial to very few.

Patents Meet Free Standards and Free Software

In Europe, Microsoft has essentially managed to collect a trophy for snubbing standards all these years. Its lawyers turned a loss in the court into a small victory. In an antitrust exhibit extracted from the previous decade, Microsoft revealed its intent to ignore standardization bodies at all costs.

“In an antitrust exhibit extracted from the previous decade, Microsoft revealed its intent to ignore standardization bodies at all costs.” "We are large enough that this can work," an internal document from Microsoft stated. This was said after the following eye-opening statement: "We [Microsoft] want to own these standards, so we should not participate in standards groups." From the Halloween Documents, whose existence and authenticity was confirmed last year, it is revealed that Microsoft planned to "innovate above standard protocols" to deny entry of Free open source software projects into the market.

Having made a de facto standard so common and having defended its existence, all Microsoft needed was a reservation of rights to demand payments from competitors. Samba distributors and users are arguably bound by a promise which the European Commission specifies in its agreement with Microsoft. Other than the cost of obtaining documentation, there are patent royalties to be considered.



Reflections and Ways to Proceed



The decision which was made by the European Commission seems to have been a poor one. For starters, interoperability was chosen as the route to compliance, all at the expense of open standards. Moreover, based on the Commission's own assessment, an interoperability route was needed merely because "trivial and pointless" extensions were added on top of existing standards, in order to stifle adoption of competing products. The Commission's accusations and blame align poorly with its decision, which is discriminatory -- if not exclusionary at best -- towards Free open source software.

In conclusion, one must remember that open standards must never be conceded and replaced by a void promise of interoperability, which is incompatible with everything that standards and Free open source software stand for. Numerous parties have therefore protested and have already urged the European Commission to reconsider and revise its decision.



Originally published in Datamation in 2007

Recent Techrights' Posts

Microsoft's Windows is a Niche Operating System in Africa
African nations aren't a large contributor to Microsoft's income, but if many African nations move away from Windows, then the monopoly is at risk
Gemini Links 19/06/2025: Unix Primitivism, Zine Club, and Gemini Protocol Turns 6 at Midnight
Links for the day
 
Mastodon and the Fediverse Have an Issue: Liability for Content (Even in Other Instances) and Costs
self-hosting is the only logical path forward
Why Microsoft and Its 'Hey Hi' (Slop) Frenzy Fail While Sinking in Deep, Growing Debt
Right now, like Twitter around the time it was sold to MElon, "open" "hey hi" is a big pile of debt with a lot to pay for that debt (interest payments)
Europe is Leaving Microsoft, the Press Coverage Isn't Sufficiently Helpful
The news is generally positive, but the press coverage leaves so much to be desired
Slopwatch: Linuxsecurity, BetaNews, and Linux Journal
slippery slope
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Thursday, June 19, 2025
IRC logs for Thursday, June 19, 2025
Gemini Links 20/06/2025: Gemini Protocol Turns 6!
Links for the day
Links 19/06/2025: Ghostwriting Scam and Fentanylware (TikTok) Buying Time
Links for the day
Links 19/06/2025: WhatsApp Identified as Assassination 'Crosshairs', Patreon Now Rips Off People Even More
Links for the day
"Told You So": Another Very Large Wave of Microsoft Layoffs Now Confirmed in Mainstream Media
So we were right to believe the rumours, based on the credibility of prior such rumours
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, June 18, 2025
IRC logs for Wednesday, June 18, 2025
Gemini Links 18/06/2025: Magit and Farming
Links for the day
Slopwatch: BetaNews is Now a Slopfarm (Like Linuxsecurity) and Google News is Overwhelmed by Slopfarms
The Web is bad
Links 18/06/2025: SCOTUS Decision on Fentanylware (TikTok) Still Ignored, 4.5-Day Work Weeks
Links for the day
Links 17/06/2025: Windows TCO and G7 Rifts
Links for the day
The Right to Know and the Freedom to Report on Crime (at the Higher Echelons)
I'd like to do the same thing for the next 20 years
BetaNews Appears to Have Fired All Of Its Staff
Even serial sloppers
After the Web Becomes Slopped to Death
A lot of people are rightly fed up with the "modern" Web
Gemini Protocol Turns 6 on Friday
Active (online) Gemini capsules are estimated by Lupa at over 3,000
Like Most Social Control Media, Microsoft LinkedIn is Collapsing
One reason for Microsoft acquisitions is debt-loading, i.e. offloading and burying its debt
Microsoft is Losing Its Richest Clients
Unlike some very poor countries, Germany and the EU are a considerable source of income to Microsoft
Proprietary Means Not Secure
Proprietary software tends to rely on secrecy, not good design
Slop in 'AI' Clothing is a Passing Fad, We'll Get Past It (Like Blockchain Before That)
Many people cheat in exams using slop and there are professionals that try using slop as a "shortcut"
GNOME Does Not Campaign Against Microsoft, KDE Does
It's good to see that KDE is still active in promotion of Free software - a term that it uses
Slopwatch: BetaNews, Linuxsecurity, and Other Prolific Slopfarms
name and shame the sites that establish such proliferation of slop
Gemini Links 18/06/2025: Birch Lake and Loon Pond
Links for the day
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, June 17, 2025
IRC logs for Tuesday, June 17, 2025