Microsoft Rivals testify in EU hearings

[Sarevok]

And what does that have to do with proprietary file formats and communications protocols? Oh yeah, absolutely nothing. Try again.

It is releavant to discussion because all input and output in a computer is done using the Windows API. Microsoft could have kept information about it secret to prevent competitors from writting programs that run on Windows. That would stop anyone who wants to write a rival media player.

Oh really? Could you please find the public documentation for the Windows domain server network authentication protocols for me? They give programmers enough to write software for Windows. They do not actually document everything necessary to make open competition possible.

No I am not an expert on Networks. But I suggest you look it up in the MSDN. I am sure you could find it there. All protocols and interfaces used by Windows is known to the public.

For example the GDI+ interface needed to draw graphics on the screen contains hundreds of functions. Each one of the functions and every single one of the parameters is documented. If you do not believe me look up the "platform SDK" section that comes with development tool documentation. There you will find every single protocol you wish to know about.

The point I am trying to make is Microsoft is not cheating over here. They write their software using the same tools we do.

Are you on drugs? A proprietary format which requires a proprietary component "supplied by Microsoft" is still a proprietary format. This proprietary component need only be written to support platforms that Microsoft chooses to support.

Windows media player itself uses the proprietory component that I mentioned. By using this components developers can expect the same performence and quality as Windows media player.

You mean the obfuscated ones which can be incorporated into filters but which don't actually cover all of the things that the apps do?

The binary file format specifications cover everything you need to open and edit word documents in your own application.

Yeah right, and Ma Bell invented telephones so they had the right to ... oh wait a minute, they didn't. This is not about a company's "rights"; it is about what's best for the consumer market. That is the whole point of antitrust; what the fuck makes you think that antitrust law exists in order to protect the "rights" of big companies?

File formats and telephones are not the same things. Most file formats out there can only be used by companies who created them. For example the .pdf format is only known to Acrobat. If a third party wants use this format in their software they need to use a library supplied by Adoebe. Microsoft is doing exactly the same thing here.

[Sarevok]

Oh really? Could you please find the public documentation for the Windows domain server network authentication protocols for me?

Since it is likely you are not an MSDN subscriber I did an online search and came up with this. I will learn not to be a fucking moron and dress my links.

[Sarevok]

You mean the obfuscated ones which can be incorporated into filters but which don't actually cover all of the things that the apps do?

Here is an online link to the binary file format http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/defau ... icedev.asp.

[Darth Wong]

It is releavant to discussion because all input and output in a computer is done using the Windows API. Microsoft could have kept information about it secret to prevent competitors from writting programs that run on Windows. That would stop anyone who wants to write a rival media player.

Are you being deliberately dense? Of course they don't mind other people writing programs for Windows; their entire business model depends on other people writing programs for Windows! What they don't want is people finding a way to use a competing OS such as Linux to do some of the same things Windows does.

No I am not an expert on Networks. But I suggest you look it up in the MSDN. I am sure you could find it there. All protocols and interfaces used by Windows is known to the public.

Wrong. Why do you think the Samba team is unable to make a fully compatible UNIX win2k domain server? Documenting function calls and documenting the underlying protocols are two completely different things.

For example the GDI+ interface needed to draw graphics on the screen contains hundreds of functions. Each one of the functions and every single one of the parameters is documented. If you do not believe me look up the "platform SDK" section that comes with development tool documentation. There you will find every single protocol you wish to know about.

You don't seem to understand that there's a big difference between documenting the function calls you need as a programmer for app software and documenting the actual underlying protocols you would need in order to duplicate the functionality of the system on another platform.

The point I am trying to make is Microsoft is not cheating over here. They write their software using the same tools we do.

And they don't document what people need to know in order to make a competing platform such as Linux truly interoperable with Windows.

Are you on drugs? A proprietary format which requires a proprietary component "supplied by Microsoft" is still a proprietary format. This proprietary component need only be written to support platforms that Microsoft chooses to support.

Windows media player itself uses the proprietory component that I mentioned. By using this components developers can expect the same performence and quality as Windows media player.

The binary file format specifications cover everything you need to open and edit word documents in your own application.

They supposedly do, but Word is not compliant to its own specifications, and they do not fully document it. Nice little dodge on their part (and yours). http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-977880.html

File formats and telephones are not the same things. Most file formats out there can only be used by companies who created them. For example the .pdf format is only known to Acrobat. If a third party wants use this format in their software they need to use a library supplied by Adoebe. Microsoft is doing exactly the same thing here.

You are describing the status quo as if this somehow defends it. Once again, you completely miss the point.

[Darth Wong]

Oh really? Could you please find the public documentation for the Windows domain server network authentication protocols for me?

Since it is likely you are not an MSDN subscriber I did an online search and came up with this. I will learn not to be a fucking moron and dress my links.

Funny how that link documents how to use win2k domain servers, not how the underlying network protocols actually work.

[Darth Wong]

You mean the obfuscated ones which can be incorporated into filters but which don't actually cover all of the things that the apps do?

Here is an online link to the binary file format http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/defau ... icedev.asp.

Funny; I don't see a full documentation of the Office file format there; all I see is what appears to be an FAQ on Office file formats. Did I miss it?

[Durandal]

Alright, I can understand the WMV complaint (even though I don't necessarily agree with it), but not the WMP complaint. Yes, I am aware that it is probably illegal, but I don't see why it should be in this case. It would be an incomplete operating system without a media player.

And therefore, they must write their own media player, dependent upon completely obscure file formats? Linux would be an incomplete OS without a media player, but you know what the Linux distro developers do? Bundle a third-party one which can be removed at the user's discretion.

Microsoft could have easily written a media player that plays standard, known file formats (MPEG, AVI, MP4, MP3) without having to bundle their own proprietary shit with it.

[Joe]

And therefore, they must write their own media player, dependent upon completely obscure file formats? Linux would be an incomplete OS without a media player, but you know what the Linux distro developers do? Bundle a third-party one which can be removed at the user's discretion.

It's not dependent on completely obscure file formats.

And also, why is any normal consumer going to give two shits about the fact that he can't uninstall media player? I had never even thought about that until now, and I use all three of the three major players.

Microsoft could have easily written a media player that plays standard, known file formats (MPEG, AVI, MP4, MP3) without having to bundle their own proprietary shit with it.

So they have their own file format, big deal. They don't have monopoly power in the media player market. I'm just not seeing how this is a huge deal. Yes, other operating systems can't play it without the permission of MS, but how often do you find media that is available solely in MS closed source formats?

[Sarevok]

You don't seem to understand that there's a big difference between documenting the function calls you need as a programmer for app software and documenting the actual underlying protocols you would need in order to duplicate the functionality of the system on another platform.

You are entirely correct. The knowledge needed to duplicate Windows is kept secret.

And they don't document what people need to know in order to make a competing platform such as Linux truly interoperable with Windows.

I wish they did. Linux is close enough to Windows that many X-Windows functions map one to one to Windows functions and there is Linux version of MFC. In the laymans terms if Microsoft was realy interested they could make Windows applications compatible with Linux.

You are describing the status quo as if this somehow defends it. Once again, you completely miss the point.

I am not saying that this status quo is right. What I am saying is prosecutors should not single out Microsoft in particular.

Funny how that link documents how to use win2k domain servers, not how the underlying network protocols actually work

Good point. No one outside Microsoft knows how Microsoft designed protocols work under the hood.

Funny; I don't see a full documentation of the Office file format there; all I see is what appears to be an FAQ on Office file formats. Did I miss it

They only have the excel binary format. That does not means that other applications can not use office file formats but they will have to use OLE which requires Microsoft Office to be installed.

You are right about this document being an FAQ. This is what Microsoft calls a "knowledge base". The actual documention comes with Microsoft Office Developers Kit[/quote]

[Darth Wong]

So they have their own file format, big deal. They don't have monopoly power in the media player market. I'm just not seeing how this is a huge deal. Yes, other operating systems can't play it without the permission of MS, but how often do you find media that is available solely in MS closed source formats?

All the time. A lot of online radio stations broadcast only to WMP, including my favourite station. A lot of websites carry video only in WMV format. The Halo 2 E3 video, for example, was released only in WMV format.

[Darth Wong]

You are entirely correct. The knowledge needed to duplicate Windows is kept secret.

We don't need to duplicate Windows completely; just some of the things it does. Otherwise, there's no competition. The nature of the computing market is that compatibility requirements create a barrier to competition. It is imperative that regulatory bodies recognize this fact and act in order to ensure that competition is maintained, even if it requires actions against the dominant market player which may seem onerous (I refer you once again to Bell; do you realize the kind of onerous and invasive procedures they had to allow as a result of the antitrust action?).

I wish they did. Linux is close enough to Windows that many X-Windows functions map one to one to Windows functions and there is Linux version of MFC. In the laymans terms if Microsoft was realy interested they could make Windows applications compatible with Linux.

Of course, we know why they don't ...

I am not saying that this status quo is right. What I am saying is prosecutors should not single out Microsoft in particular.

You have to think in terms of the purpose of antitrust law. An action which is perfectly legal for a small fish is not legal for the dominant market player, because its consequences can potentially kill competition in the market. The small player could do the exact same thing without such risk. But if it became the dominant player, it would have to clean up its act.

In other words, it's obvious why Microsoft is being singled out. Why do you have a problem with it?

They only have the excel binary format. That does not means that other applications can not use office file formats but they will have to use OLE which requires Microsoft Office to be installed.

Once again, this requires proprietary components. It's not a truly open format (did you see the ZDNet article I linked to?), and it's being used to unlevel the playing field.

[Crayz9000]

All the time. A lot of online radio stations broadcast only to WMP, including my favourite station. A lot of websites carry video only in WMV format. The Halo 2 E3 video, for example, was released only in WMV format.

And I have to say that it's getting fucking annoying. I have to use WMP to stream the data, because no other player can do it, and that means I have to put up with that software's bloat and DRM. Streambox VCR doesn't support the new protocols because that program was written ages ago...