EU to Microsoft: Licensing fee? Try free

EU to Microsoft: Licensing fee? Try free

Summary: If European Union regulators have their way Microsoft will have to turn over technical information about its Windows operating system for little to no compensation. According to documents seen by the Financial Times the EU and Microsoft remain far apart on the details of the EU's antitrust ruling three years ago.


If European Union regulators have their way Microsoft will have to turn over technical information about its Windows operating system for little to no compensation.

According to documents seen by the Financial Times the EU and Microsoft remain far apart on the details of the EU's antitrust ruling three years ago. Under that ruling, the EU requires Microsoft to license technical information to rivals so server software is more interoperable.

The rub: Licensing typically means someone gets a fee. The EU apparently has mixed up fee and free. According to the Financial Times Microsoft wants 5.95 percent of rivals server revenue as a license. The EU wants "a tiny fraction" of what Microsoft is demanding. An EU expert noted that a licensing fee of 0 would be best.

Microsoft has until April 23 to respond.

Topic: EU

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Message has been deleted.

    • Sovereignty

      Don't sovereign entities like governments decide what is and is not "legal"? Nobody is forcing Microsoft to do business in the EU. They do it because it makes them money. It's their choice. Contrary to popular belief, the world would not come to an end if Microsoft went out of business, after all. Progress has never in history been dependent on one person or one company. Someone and something will always fill the vacuum.
      • Only individuals are sovereign

        Socialists merely pretend that the State might be something other than a cruel fiction.
        • The State is what we let it be

          It is the individuals combined that GAVE the State the authority it has. If you want real individualism, where you are sovereign, a mountain-man is the only viable option. If you want a society, there has to be a higher authority to enforce the agreed upon rules for one thing. Personally the mountain-man idea has always appealed to me.
          Spoon Jabber
      • That's why I don't like the EU

        "Don't sovereign entities like governments . . ."

        That's why I don't like the EU. It's practically a sovereign entity by itself, and may require other countries to give up some of their sovereignty. Personally, I don't think it's the job of an entity like the EU to be acting as if it were a sovereign government.
        • Consider the organizer of the EU

          Looks to me as they are thinking "One World Government". Seems like every time the Bilderburg group meets, the follow up is more creation. They are thinking globally.

          It started with the EU but now it is spreading. See . That is the beginning attempts of a North American Union starting with the U.S., Mexico and Canada. Ask the lady from New York, she was at the last Bilderburg meeting, and now she is running. I keep hoping she is running for Mexico or some other country. Sorry, Just my opinion.
    • Not saying I agree with the EU but

      It is their country and they can run it as they see fit.

      Microsoft doesn't have to do business there. If, Microsoft doesn't like the terms then stop doing business with them.

      Yes, they do have the right to set pricing since they convicted Microsoft of having a monopoly. They can also set their own laws regardless of us (USA).
    • NO...It's not.

      Do you develop Windows programing? Have you paid Microsoft a fee for using their API??? No???, I thought so.

      So why should anyone else pay a fee for using another API for accessing a Microsoft network????
      linux for me
      • WRONG!

        "Do you develop Windows programing?"


        Have you paid Microsoft a fee for using their API???

        Yes, when I BOUGHT and PAID for Windows and Visual Studios.

        Run along until you have a clue.
        • How can you be so stupid?

          You do not need visual studio to write Windows programs. If you want to spend that kind of money for an inferior development suite, that's your problem. You paid for Windows to run an OS, whether you write for that OS or not, so you DID NOT PAY for access to the Windows API.

          To use your logic, I should have the API to connect to Microsoft's networks, since I own Windows Server, the hooks that Microsoft refuses to give up, and the EU wants.

          You can't have both ways, fool. So you run along until you have a cle, and a brain, and a thought, etc....
          linux for me
          • Hey DORK...

            You may not understand it (being so limited and all) but there are a TON of APIs and activx controls that ONLY come with Visual Studios.

            As I said, run along until you have a clue.
          • As a programmer, you should know better....

            The Windows APIs are in Windows. The .NET APIs are in .NET related code. There are NOT the same thing.

            As for ActiveX controls, what do they have to do with APIs? ActiveX controls are simply an encapsulation method for code, and are not some sort of "magic". Anyone with the proper tools and knowledge (and those tools do not have to be VS in any iteration) can create an ActiveX control.

            *sigh* Please, as an (alleged) programmer, think about what you claimed up there. If your comment was both relevant and true to its implications, you would be stating that there are a lot of *Windows* APIs that didn't come with Windows - you only received them when you installed Visual Studio (singular, not plural). And that's simply untrue.

            Ax, you just made me doubt that you really are a programmer. Well done!
          • He just thinks he is...

            a programmer. As long as he can point and click, he's "Programming"....LOL
            Let him do PL1 or FORTRAN etc. He can't pint and click to program, so, "It's not a good program. ....ROFLMAO..
            That's why they are screaming so loud, they don't want the world to know that they are NOT programmers.

            Such a poor delusional soul. you have to feel sorry for him....NOT

            Remember pre. 2000?? I made hand over fist with COBOL. The point and click "artist" just could do it...LOL
            No wonder the MCSE are called "Microsoft Certified Solitaire Expert"

            He's trying to disrupt the boards with half truth and illogical comments for years.
          • The last thing you "programmed" was a C64.

            If you're using Visual Studio to put together "software", then you deserve to pay way too much for something that creates resource hog after resource hog.

            To put it this way - you're not "programming" in any sense of the word. You're taking stuff that was put together, cutting it out, and and pasting it together, poorly. Just like those times when you were in kindergarten and ate the paste that was supposed to hold the red construction paper to the green construction paper.

            Want to see some real programming? Google "8088 corruption" and make sure you can run an emulated Sound Blaster. (Hint - if you have a SB 2.0, or Pro and an original IBM PC with CGA graphics, it'll run at 30 FPS. Not bad for 4.77 mhz, eh?)
    • What are you so upset about?

      It's not like this ruling will affect you. You don't live over here.

      So you'll be able to go on enjoying the experience of handing money over to Microsoft for trivial stuff. Most other companies WANT 3rd parties to be able to interoperate with their kit and hand out this sort of information either free or for a one-off small fee.
      • Trivial???

        So you think the EU's requests are trivial? I agree...
    • Couple of points... oh US moron...

      1) According to [url=]EU eyes royalties squeeze for Microsoft[/url] (another ZDNet article referring to the same report), the Microsoft agreed to person [b]Neil Barrett[/b] veld the view that the amount was excessive.

      [b] The document was written by Neil Barrett, the expert agreed on by Microsoft and the Commission. According to Barrett, at a 5.95 percent royalty rate, Microsoft's rivals would recoup their development costs within seven years. Barrett said in the document that this would be unacceptable, and that even a royalty of 1 percent was too much.

      Microsoft's suggested remedy would be "prohibitively high...and should be reduced in line with this analysis," Barrett said, according to the Financial Times report.[/b]

      Barret is an American appointed by Microsoft and agreed to by the EU commission.

      Further: According to the Financial Times, the Commission understands that prices proposed by Microsoft would not "allow (rivals IBM, Sun Microsystems and Oracle) to develop products that would be viable from a business perspective."

      Now since an American that was agreed to by both the EU and Microsoft does not agree with you, could it be that No_Ax_to_Grind is wrong (again)?
      • Ah, such an astute observation!

        [B]"could it be that No_Ax_to_Grind is wrong (again)?"[/B]

        More often than not. ]:)
        Linux User 147560
      • Not this time<nt>

      • And i wager

        I can find someone that thinks a turd is good eating. What's your point? One guy agrees??? PFffttt....