MS was trying to point out that it has plenty of competition in the interoperability department. Case point Samba within Linux, open directory etc. It also argued that Linux has groupware but since they are open source... yeah DUH. There is a flip side to this decision - I don't really care one way or another but there are plenty of products that inter-operate with MS whether MS wants them to or not. But forcing MS to open up closed architecture is going to open op more holes in an already riddled system. We've debated open disclosure before but that is a flip side.

The case basically said that MS uses secret code to connect it's products. And this gives them an unfair advantage. Therefore they must open up this code. Wonder if this effects AD security. If so this decision could give MS and advantage going forward. Bet no one has written that yet?