Ask a Legal Expert How MS Ruling Affects Open Source 254
By now we all know about Judge Kollar-Kotelly's decision in the Microsoft antitrust case. The effect of this ruling on Linux and Open Source use and future development is not yet clear. For those of you who have been wondering about this, we have a special interview guest: Attorney Lawrence E. (Larry) Rosen, Linux Journal's popular Geek Law columnist, who is surely one of the best-qualified people in the world to answer questions on this topic. (Usual Slashdot interview rules apply.)
Finally! (Score:5, Funny)
Question about the judge (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Question about the judge (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Question about the judge (Score:2, Insightful)
How do consumers benefit? No, really! (Score:5, Insightful)
Where, in this decision, do the consumers benefit? If you could put yourself in CKK's shoes, what would you say?
Re:How do consumers benefit? No, really! (Score:2)
For instance, if you are interested in writing an EXT2 (or other) driver for Windows 2000, it will cost you $1000 [microsoft.com] for the DDK.
Re:How do consumers benefit? No, really! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How do consumers benefit? No, really! (Score:2, Insightful)
How many average consumers know what Linux or Mac OSX are? How many will know if MS is screwing them over? How many will have a choice?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How do consumers benefit? No, really! (Score:2)
I keep waiting for consumers to revolt to poor quality, service and the general model of licensing ("non-ownership" of products), but things just keep getting worse. I'm not just talking about the software world here either.
It's called "Click-through" for a reason... (Score:5, Interesting)
Millions of computer users assume that they own their computer, as well as everything on it. They don't understand the concept of software licensing, and most would probably (Strange, but true) give up using a computer if they discovered they didn't own everything on it.
The whole reason license agreements have become terrible for those of us who read them is because of the vast majority who don't. Software companies have an easy time adding clauses to their license agreements, because most people don't read them. It reaches a point where what people are agreeing to, and what they think they're agreeing to, become two separate animals.
If these were physical, handwritten contracts, there'd be all sorts of legal battles citing extortion, but, last I checked, there haven't been any competent lawyers arguing that extortion is possible online.
For reference, ask an old-time geek about GIF and the LZW patents.
I'd really like to see a business demigod declare that software-licensing can become restrictive enough to be considered a "cybercrime."
A good first step? Take two graphs, both of which would be "restrictivity vs usercount" contract comparison graphs. One graph would be for some highly competitive market (like loans or mortages), the other would be for major software products like office products.
Unfortunately, I can't think of any way to graphically represent the choices for initial software that people have when they buy their computers.
Re:It's called "Click-through" for a reason... (Score:2, Interesting)
1) If I buy a license and transfer it across a customs barrier, I tend to have to pay tax on it. Why? In what sense is the license moving? I don't need to pay import tax on my driving license, gun license, building permit.
2) A case from a few years back: a person lost a registered copy of Quark Xpress in a hurricane. The manuals, disks, etc. were lost but surely a LICENSE is an abstract entity and the person's LICENSE remained. Quark refused to replace the GOODS or permit the person to copy someone else's. In what sense then was this a LICENSE?
The entire concept of ownership and licensing is really quite severely mutilated when applied to software, and eventually our legal institutions will need to recognise this formally and deal with it.
Supply vs Demand (Score:2)
On one hand, we have a demand counted in millions of potential customers. That's a huge demand.
On the other hand, we have this rather lopsided supply. Sure, we have at least a few million software developers in the world, but their distribution isn't even. We have huge, monolithic companies like Oracle, Microsoft and Apple, who have large big, well-known names, large customer bases, and fat profits.
Then we have thousands and thousands of OSS developers, most of whom give away their products for free.
The problem is with the monolithic companies. Big names shine like headlights in your face at night; you can't see the little guys. Like looking at the night sky in a big city, that reduces your visible options dramatically. So you have a small supply.
But a big demand. That means high costs.
Costs don't have to be in the form of dollars-per-sale; they can be in the form of freedoms lost, charges for technical support on a faulty product, and any number of practical costs intrinsic to closed-source, big name products. (Wish someone would compile a list of these, maybe, say, a thousand items.)
For home use, these costs are conveyed into personal freedoms like personal copies of music and choice of product.
(Okay, you can stop presuming Joe Average as intelligent. I know, it hurts. I do tech support.)
Re:How do consumers benefit? No, really! (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah! Or they might find out which company you buy your tinfoil from, and buy that company, and put nanomachines in all the tinfoil so that your tinfoil hat actually reads your brain!!
Re:How do consumers benefit? No, really! (Score:2)
Ummmm.... Where cash comes from?
Re:How do consumers benefit? No, really! (Score:2)
Well you and the rest of the world that uses MS software. That is however irrelevant. That money belongs to MS shareholders and in any other publicly held company having 40 billion in cash laying around is bad. Companies are supposed to either use the money for aquisitions or growth through other means or give it back to the shareholders via dividends.
MS instead is holding on to cash assets and I want to know why? I suspect that Bill Gates knows something about the world economy that we don't.
Re:How do consumers benefit? No, really! (Score:2)
It is irrelevant if average consumers don't write code. In fact, it stresses the point. MSFT opening its APIs doesn't help anyone, since those that do need it worked around it.
A standard OS/browser is pretty irrelevant too. I can get into a Honda, a Saturn, or Ford pickup and still be able to drive it on the road. After I get familiar with the controls, I can drive it easily. Linux and Windows are the same way. If people would take the 15 minutes required to figure out what the differences are, they would be fine.
Re:How do consumers benefit? No, really! (Score:5, Informative)
Did Microsoft Win ? (Score:5, Interesting)
But I read amazed the press and the media in my country (spain) and all of them agree that Microsoft Wins.
Who won ?
Re:Did Microsoft Win ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft lost the case ages ago, so it became a question of what the penalty would be. Microsoft and the DOJ worked together and came up with a settlement proposal. Microsoft has been working hard to get this settlement approved. The settlement has penalties against Microsoft, but it is pretty much what they want it to be considering they lost.
When someone loses in court and they are happy with the penalty it is a relative "win" for them.
The big issue is that many people feel that the DOJ went too easy on Microsoft in the settlement. It only remedies a few of their abuses, and it has loopholes in it making major portions worthless.
For example the loopholes on releasing information - They are permitted to release it in an extremely limited, closed, and often useless manner. If there is any information they do not wish to release, all they have to do is link it in some way to security, DRM, or some other company's information and that exempts it from disclosure.
-
How do you feel about the appointed committe? (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's a snip from
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/27913.html
And it's a good thing that Microsoft helps choose the people who will police it, explains the Judge:
"...the committee will likely foster an environment of cooperative resolution, rather than one of persistent conflict and litigation. Otherwise, attempts at enforcement have a greater potential to take on the tenor of adversary proceedings, resolved in most instances with great difficulty and delay."
Who is watching the watchers? (Score:5, Insightful)
The slightly longer answer is: Even monkeys avoid pain. Thus, as will be shown, the longer the committee is around, the less they will do to monitor Microsoft and the more they will adamantly state that they are complying with the court order. In this way they can misdirect any and all probes to find out exactly what they are doing.
Basically, the judge is incorrect. You cannot have someone monitor themselves because they will be saying they are doing what you've asked them to do when really they never do.
Ask yourself this: We recently had a string of murders committed by two people. Should we give them back their guns and set them free? We should. Let's just tell them not to shoot anyone else - ok? I'm sure they will do as we ask. After all - they've promised not to do it again and are willing to report in anytime we ask them to do so. You believe them? Don't you?
I didn't think so. So now, change the word "gun" to "unlimited funds" and "shoot anyone else" to "harm any other business [like make them go out of business or do anymore FUDs and such]" and you basically have what's going on with this case. Oh yes, I almost forgot, change "murders" to "business fallouts/forced foreclosures/buyouts/takeovers/whatever" and "two people" to "Microsoft". Why! It reads the same. Bless me!
On Palladium (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:On Palladium (Score:2)
Palladium is an open source killer. Thats its purpose. Its security for Microsoft.
Not So Simple (Score:2)
Re:On Palladium (Score:2)
That will only work if you are willing to become a 2nd class citizen on the Internet. No man is an island, especially with the network effect on the Internet.
How much 'content' out there requires Windows Media Player today? In five years, I'd expect the situation to be is even worse - with WMP-Palladium required.
Re:On Palladium (Score:2)
Re:On Palladium (Score:2)
All MS has to do is release a new codec for WMP, and mplayer is again out in the cold. For Windows, it is a simple autodownload the first time the new codec is encountered, no need to break compatibility. The situation is a bit more difficult for embedded devices without an easy software upgrade capability. Anyway, rest assured that MS *will* do this the moment they consider mplayer to be a genuine competitor.
Besides, MS has still not played the patent card to stop interoperable implementations. Now that the DoJ is no longer breathing down their necks, MS will use that weapon whenever it applies.
(yes, "M$" is an appropriate spelling no matter what proponents of "civilized discussion" consider to be politically correct)
(As for the M$ spelling - it tends to make the people you are arguing with write you off as a juvenile gas-bag instead of listening to any valid arguments that you make.)
Re:On Palladium (Score:3, Insightful)
What I describe above is the kind of basic understanding that is lacking in the typical computer OS "customer". And it's this lack that has made Microsoft so strong, and forced the rest of us to have no choice but to deal with it because the ignorant majority use it.
Copyright != Antitrust (Score:5, Interesting)
Clearly, Microsoft has been found guilty of using its copyright on Windows 95 to kill Netscape.
Is is possible for a pirate to successfully defend himself by claiming Microsoft has lost its copyright? (I assume this applies to only that software specifically mentioned in the case. Not all software produced by Microsoft)
Re:Copyright != Antitrust (Score:2)
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-243394.html?legac
How much could wriggle room hurt open source? (Score:5, Interesting)
Steve
Re:How much could wriggle room hurt open source? (Score:4, Interesting)
And another question (brought up by a member of my LUG): Doesn't anyone think this is a bit of a two-edged sword? Anytime MSFT hides behind the 'security' clause they are basically admitting that they are depending on security though obscurity!
While I agree that this is more of a tool for MSFT to block interoperability I think it leaves a lot of room for Sun, Linux pushers, etc. to point and say, "Here, look, we can show you how the security works on our product yet it's still solid".
Will this matter, do you think?
Re:How much could wriggle room hurt open source? (Score:3, Interesting)
"Here, look, we can show you how the security works on our product yet it's still solid".
This is a really important point.
As needs for security, authentication and privacy grow in the future, there will be different means of accomplishing that goal.
If the cornerstone of MS technology is to require centralized authentication with them, or to make it practically-speaking difficult for anyone to offer competing Certifying Authorities in the .NET world, then many Enterprises are going to ask tough questions of it, like:
andA genuinely distributed security model that does not gratuitously tie any commercial entitity into a position of indispensibility is what's needed. If MS doesn't provide that, then someone else will.
This is an extra feature of secure computing that is not obvious.
I think Microsoft has come to recoginize that the crypto experts are right: code review of algorithms is essential for gaining the greatest credence that your system is secure, despite the risk that you might temporarily look bad.
But even more is required than a secure system.
A system is need where anyone who so desires can freely build their own web of trust independent of all other authorities.
How to respond to this decision (Score:2, Insightful)
If you don't like it, remember: tomorrow is Election Day.
GET OUT AND VOTE!
Re:How to respond to this decision (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the thing that terrifies me most about the current political climate. I believe the CPTBDA (or whatever the hell its called now) is the only way Linux (well Open Source at least) will lose out to Windows in the end.
In this case the political decisions AREN'T
BINARY.
If the Bush administration failed in this area the Dem's would not necessarily succeed. In fact they could do something completely different, but just as bad as, or even worse than this.
Re:How to respond to this decision (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm not sure it does.... During the last election, voters in Washington state tossed out an incumbent Republican senator, Slade Gorton, who was informally known of as the "Senator from Microsoft". In his place, they elected a Democratic senator, Maria Cantwell, who is rapidly becoming known of as the "Senator from Microsoft". <wry grin> (And also known of as the Real Networks VP largely responsible for Real's record as an unrepentant spammer and abusive marketer.) :/
IMHO any assumption that a vote for the Democrats is going to help the situation with Microsoft is unsupported by the evidence. Look at the records and views of the individual candidates, and vote for the individual candidates whose track record and express views are most favorable to preserving a truly free market.
(And, no, this isn't a sneaky post urging you to vote Libertarian instead.) ;>
Re:How to respond to this decision (Score:2)
That might be a worthwhile strategy. At least, it wouldn't lead a voter to make the mistake of assuming that a candidate's party affiliation will tell you much about how they will vote on this type of issue.
I don't buy this. That isn't how the judicial system or courts work; they're aggressively independent and judges rarely make judgements based on the considerations you or I would think important.
It wouldn't surprise me if this is how a number of politicians respond to things, though. <sigh>
Anti-trust Precedent for the Software Industry? (Score:4, Interesting)
Valid Business Model (Score:5, Interesting)
Additionally what effect will MS's right to charge have on OSS? Can MS only charge for developers to see the code or are they entitled to charge royalties for the implementation of the code? (Can you legally reverse engineer a software having seen the code?)
Re:Valid Business Model (Score:2)
Ah, yes. The infamous section III.J.2. Well, in the past, Microsoft has made its opinion of Open Source quite clear [techtv.com].
Re:Valid Business Model (Score:3, Informative)
As the OP pointed out, section III.J.2 says that a sound business model is whatever Microsoft decides it is.
Anti-MS swing in media more damaging? (Score:3, Interesting)
Take a look at this article [bbc.co.uk] at the BBC as an example of the pro-linux swing being evidenced in the non-geek media.
Will this ultimately do more damage to Microsoft than anything the US DOJ could do?
Re:Anti-MS swing in media more damaging? (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, why exactly do you consider it damage? Isn't the supposed goal of this anti-trust lawsuit to bring about competition? If that competition does exist, then has not the goal been met?
If the goal has been met, then is there any further reason to proceed against Microsoft in a court of law? This is not damaging to Microsoft, it's actually beneficial. At least in terms of lawsuits, even if they may be losing potential marketshare/revenue.
Personally I'm of the belief that the computer world is so large that even a niche player has a substantial revenue potential. This idea that any one company needs to own it all is outdated, just like the auto industry and others. (Although you still see Honda versus Chevy arguments on the internet)
Can Microsoft Pull a "Fast One"? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Can Microsoft Pull a "Fast One"? (Score:2, Flamebait)
Please clarify the difference between real code and bugged code. :-)
And don't whine about MS-bashing - try and tell me they don't deserve it.
Re:Can Microsoft Pull a "Fast One"? (Score:2)
What is being put into place to insure that Microsoft actually hands over real code?
Sheesh, I'm sorry, but this is really a lame question. Have you ever heard of "contempt of court"? People can go to jail for that. Do you really think that people (yes, they are people like you and me, not satanic demons) are going to risk going to jail just so they can have some undocumented APIs?
A lot of people really, really, really need to get a grip when it comes to Microsoft.
Ok a question... (Score:5, Interesting)
The reason for this is that we already know that Microsoft has been violating the agreement, virtually from the moment they agreed to it. This does not give me confidence in any monitoring team's ability to enforce it.
My second question (ha! snuck this one in!) is: How does this affect the ability for Open Source groups to re-implement Microsoft APIs for Windows?
Again, we already know that Microsoft has added hidden checks to verify a given DLL is authentic Microsoft, rather than a 3rd-party clone. However, with no legal requirement to modularize (and therefore legal permission to mangle things up too much to re-implement), it would be very difficult to prove in court that a given technical issue was a product of a coding error or an agreement violation.
Ok, one more question. What's to stop Microsoft from releasing a Windows+, which is "not Windows" in the same way Windows98 wasn't Windows95, thus voiding the entire agreement?
Frankly, I don't think this bodes at all well for ANY competitor to Microsoft. Too many loopholes, and too much squelching power. It's about the same as playing "Lemmings" with a high-power plasma cannon. There cannot be any realistic opposition.
(Last, but not least, if the legal expert -does- start their reply with "IANAL", I'd have a hard time being surprised. We live in "interesting times", and reality is taking a long lunch-break.)
Question: (Score:4, Funny)
Defence of open source projects (Score:4, Interesting)
As a friend said, there's nothing like getting away with murder to encourage you to start killing more people.
Re:Defence of open source projects (Score:3, Insightful)
No, this makes open source projects harder to kill off, not easier. If there is no associated company or owner, who do you take legal action against? And there will always be people willing to continue the project if the main developers are "disuaded" from working on it.
APIs (Score:5, Interesting)
My followup question is: what mechanism did the judge set up for determining whether an API should be public or not?
sector-specific regulation needed? (Score:4, Interesting)
Can we get what we wanted (Score:5, Interesting)
Sua Sponte? (Score:5, Interesting)
It sounds a very open ended authority that grants the judge broad powers over all aspects of the settlement. Can the judge use this provision to broaden the scope of the agreement or to force Microsoft to use a particular intrepretation of some clause, for example the security exemption or the viability clause.
Or am I just a geek grasping for straws.
Glaring Loophole? (Score:4, Interesting)
Is there any legal device that prevents them from, say, distributing some security procedure over all the APIs, thus limiting their disclosure to nothing?
Section J (Score:5, Interesting)
meets reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for certifying the
authenticity and viability of its business
So, does that mean that they can refuse the APIs and protocols to Open Source projects claiming that they don't consider them viable business models?
In the other sections it points out the Microsoft is not allowed to be discriminatory, so which one overrides the other?
Re:Section J (Score:4, Interesting)
On the other hand, if you are an esablished business (let's say RedHat,) with like an accountant and maybe some stock options, and you have a Duns and Bradstreet number, then you are probably good to go. Microsoft would have a hard time arguing that RedHat isn't an "authentic and viable" business in any "reasonable and objective" sense of the words. They can't just say "well, all OS except for Windows are not viable, so take a hike."
I think the bigger issues are:
1. What remedies, if any, address non-compliance?
2. How big is the security carve-out? Is it so big that we'll never know anything about Longhorn/Palladium since they'll implement interprocess crypto (think x-box)? Or is it so small as to basically mean that MS doesn't have to provide info like "The SMB backdoor password is xyzzy?" In one case it covers anything dealing with crypto, in another case only a huge flaw that MS would rather not have public.
That's why I'm asking... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:That's why I'm asking... (Score:2, Funny)
I hereby decree that panties is the appropriate metaphor to understand this whole Section J issue.
Re:Section J (Score:2)
But then Red Hat will have to sign an NDA and will not be allowed to release any source code. So how does this help us?
Was the judge's ruling based on the case.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you feel the judge was judging within the context of the case she was brought (in other words, that the DOJ fell down on the job of bringing the appeal), or do you feel that the judge's decision was in error based on the case that was brought to her?
suppose they violate the agreement (Score:5, Insightful)
Preinstalled Linux (Score:3)
Slashdot-speak (Score:3, Flamebait)
I'm not saying this because I disagree with Larry's conclusions (although I do, to some extent); I'm just trying to point out the bias that permeates this site. The word "news" has been redefined over the past 35 years to mean "commentary," and that's too bad.
Judge's Reasoning (Score:5, Interesting)
From what I read of the decision (yes, I tried to wade through a significant chunk of its hundreds of pages) Judge KK seems to justify many of her points by saying that the remedies suggested by the dissenting states do not address the fault that was established. That is, for instance, forcing MS to auction the rights to port Office to Linux has nothing to do with the fact that MS used its monopoly power to squash Netscape, etc. That is, anything not directly related to the theory that MS felt a threat from middleware with cross-platform abilities is out of bounds as a remedy. (First question then might be: Is that an accurate description of part of her reasoning?) In some instances, what she says sounds right to me and in others it seems like she needs to re-read the findings of fact [gpo.gov].
Another reason she seems to like for rejecting proposed remedies is that they would "help MS's competitors but not competition". This distinction seems slim. If that really is required of any anti-trust remedy, then is anything other than breaking MS up even a potential remedy?
Most importantly, given the narrow ways she uses to reject the proposed additional remedies, didn't she leave open the possibility of the success of a brand new anti-trust suit that does address the other ways in which MS has abused its monopoly power? (Like for instance, wouldn't Sun's additional anti-trust suit have a good chance?) But, given how long these trials take, won't Microsoft's strategy of prolonging the process wind us right back where we are, where any remedy applied so long after the fact makes no real difference? And then if that's so, while her remedy might be legally defensible, it would also serve to graphically illustrate the impotence of our anti-trust laws, no?
BWCarver
Discriminatory (Score:5, Interesting)
I refer to licensing designed to block usage of the GPL- and more than that, the attempts through the Shared Source license to produce a population of coders with built-in vulnerability to Microsoft legal attack (the admissions of being privy to MS proprietary information, the abandoning of patent rights etc)
How much of this will they have to immediately change because it conflicts with the Judge's requirement that they not be discriminatory? It happens to be central to their strategy, and I can't believe this discrepancy will go un-noted.
Okay, I'll bite... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Okay, I'll bite... (Score:2)
I'd only ask, for clarification: does this ruling erect any additional legal barriers that were not already there before?
--
No, this post isn't a troll.
From a Different Point of View (Score:5, Interesting)
My question however, is, if you look at this decision from a Business perspective, how does it fall? Is this decision in line with existing case law when it comes to dealing with individuals and corporations who have come to exercise huge amounts of power over their various sectors of the economy? Was this decision made with the intent of strengthening the overall business climate of the US, especially given the current state of the world economy? Will it make perfect sense to the average CEO?
Has Opensource shot itself in the foot? (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Open Source has bound itself (willingly or not I cannot say) with Free Software. I see a fundamental difference between the two as OpenSource is more of the Scientific approach of having a peer reviewed research and development platform, where as (self admittedly) Free Software focuses on making *all* software free as a public domain/service
2. Many open source applications have been developed with the purpose of allowing those who would not normally have the skills to circumvent "IP protection measures". That is, P2P, an adopted open source initiative has Free Software ties because the "information" that P2P networks choose to distribute are for the most part Close Sourced or Copyrighted material.
3. Closed source companies (like Microsoft) and Copy righted companies (like Vivendi) Have both used the arguement that *OPEN SOURCE* software is the cause of the loss of revenue and piracy and have implemented protection schemes that *must be* protected by proprietary closed source mechanisms in order to protect the revenue stream of those coutries
4. Companies will continue to deny legitimate opensource companies access to their API because they incorrectly bind open-source develpers with Free-Software developers (while one may be the other, both may legitimately exist independently of other that is, not all oss devs are freesoftware devs and not all freesoftware devs are oss devs).
5. Legislation looms that would prohibit Open Source to be developed on any commercial level and even make it illegal to own and distribute open source based hardware *because of those who would use propietary software without paying for it* who feel they have a right to another's work without compensating the creator.
6. Those legislators (rightly or wrongly) see open source as a breeding ground for hackers and information pirates, and do not seperate law breakers from the rest of the group. eg. You never hear a *rogue* OSS developer getting arrested on DMCA charges, the same way you hear of *rogue* ceos or *rogue* scientists acting in a way that disgraces the community.
So really, is this a question of those who have steered open source away from its roots to be a campaign for free software? And how will traditionally open source companies (or) individual developers access the blueprints if MS can conveniently label them as software pirates or illegitimate institutions undeserving of access to its API?
See: Invisible conspiracies (Score:2)
Price schedule (Score:3, Interesting)
We are screwed (Score:2)
They now have pretty much free reign to attack all competitors how ever the see fit, including OpenSource stuff.
Lesson learned: if you get big enough you are exempt from business laws. Only trick is getting there before you get caught.
Re:We are screwed (Score:2)
Being a monopoly ( as has been declared in court ) gives you unfair advantage, to the extent that there isn't any true competition in the respective market.
Thus this is NOT like 'each of the millions of other businesses'. I tend to believe that the majority play by the rules. I could be wrong but id like to believe that anyway.
Balancing act (Score:2)
Note that I have no love for Microsoft, yet I do wish to keep the government out of business and more into the practice of governing.
As the settlement stands, it seems like an intrusion(even if quite useless) into Microsoft's business. Perhaps even with this settlement, the invisible hand will deal with them in time.
How can the European court help? (Score:5, Interesting)
Fair decision? (Score:4, Interesting)
Palladium/LaGrande Defense (Score:2)
As no one else that I'm aware of is doing this in an open source fashion, they'll end up with a defacto monopoly in a protection racket. At that time, the argument could be made that Microsoft used its monopoly power to create another monopoly.
Any chance of using that against them to open up Palladium?
Does this agreement have teeth? (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft seems to be playing the part of the spoiled child here. The parents keep saying he's doing bad things and that he should stop, but they never back up their threats with effective action. I can't imagine Microsoft changing its ways anytime soon unless this agreement is actually setting up significant consequences for them.
Is it possible for a person to sue.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Get a sub-class to sue DOJ & Microsoft for violating the public trust and get judgement set aside.
Group of citzens to appeal the ruling for failure in addressing the concerns of the public, supplied during public comment, by adjusting the agreement to meet those concerns.
Lack of technical expertise (Score:5, Interesting)
nails in you own coffin (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing takes the fight out of a revolution like the tyrant becoming reasonable. IBM super computers, HP, SGI, Sun; as the big boys switch to Linux and cell phones, pda's and other things move to J2ME on a Linux kernel for all the right reasons the governments and other big users will have even more reason to switch away from the MS bullying.
Of course, bully's become spiteful in the end and drive the nails into their own coffins. My question is "can we sue the DOD to switch to OSS and Linux since it would seem necessary for both security and R&D and the MS EULA's don't allow their products to be loaded onto systems alongside OSS software". Seems to me it would save lots of money as well as making the DOD legal, secure and smarter. Given MS's either-or ELUA's they seem like the ones to be canned.
nondiscrimenatory basis clause (Score:5, Interesting)
Also using the term nondiscriminatory does this mean that if Microsoft were to release API's and details to other companies that they consider to be not for general publication because of "security" reasons is this discriminatory and therefore not allowed as well. In other words can Microsoft allow some but not others access to "security" API
s and information?
Re:nondiscrimenatory basis clause (Score:2)
What I'm concerned about is how the Judge made the distinction in what to include as technologies that must be considered separate, and how she stated that OS components, Middleware, and other products were not neccessarily mutually exclusive. There was in her description information that the inclusion of products and technologies that can be distributed separately from the OS, or are trademarked, or (a few other things) would be considered in the middleware category. Would that mean that a certain functionality in another OS that can be separated on OTHER OS's, such as the PCMCIA code in Linux, would mean that code controlling PCMCIA cards in Windows would need to be considered as separate from the OS? Other examples would be window managers vs. the same functionality, and shells?
Continuing with her definition of Middleware, stating Internet Explorer is in the class of middleware -- when programming within the windows shell, much of the stuff actually thought of as 'windows' is actually interpreted inside of Internet Exploder; will the interoperablity clauses affect those as well? Specifically will MS have to provide methods to replace/swap the shell as though it were Middleware?
(It's time to go home for the night, and this isn't coming across clarly. Can someone translate this more into readable text if they think they understand? Thanks. frob)
Microsoft Justice and the GPL (Score:2, Interesting)
From no point of view does the judge's decision make sense. Microsoft is as large a company as there ever has been, and they've gotten that way by screwing people (Microsoft tax on OEM machines), other companies (Microsoft Java VM, etc) , and the government (billions wasted on NT) at every turn. As large as they are, one could speculate that turning this case against Microsoft would devastate the economy (if one were a fool, of course). Is it possible that the ruling was made in favour of Microsoft in order to not dent the economy? Whether or not this was done, nobody with any sense expects Microsoft's tactics to change, so when this court case comes around again next time, how difficult will it be to make a case, considering that Microsoft doesn't have to turn over documents they judge to hold IP, coupled with the precedence this case sets?
With Microsoft's won-loss record in the courts, what would occur if they tried to step on the GPL (a prevalent license of Open Source Software)? If they defeated the viral parts of the GPL [gnu.org], would the entire license be void, or would just the viral parts be NULL? Finally, as a not-a-lawyer, I can't tell who the "we" in the preamble of the GPL [gnu.org] means. When I read it, it sounds like the "we" refers to the Free Software Foundation. If just a portion of the GPL were defeated, would the FSF own the copyright to all the software ever GPL'd, but not have to play by it's viral rules anymore?
Re:Microsoft Justice and the GPL (Score:2)
If the GPL is illegal then your rights to the software revert to those covered by copyright law. This lets you do far less with the software. It seems unlikely that it can be illegal in any way however, because it grants rights. It says "Normally it is against the law to do A to me, but I will allow you to do so. It is also against the law to do B to me but I don't grant you permission to do that". This is really what the GPL says, but a lot of people seem to have A and B confused and see it as some sort of taking of rights, they think it's more like "I'll let you do B. Wait I take some of B back and only leave you A".
You pay a little now, or pay a lot later... (Score:3, Interesting)
OK, so MS can go home feeling pretty good about having gotten the judgement they wanted, and that (from what I've seen here in the US) mainstream media is focusing on how the judgement might bouy the US stock market rather than on the issues of the case or how it will affect the industry. MS will probably view this as a huge win. So huge, in fact, that it's likely that Microsoft (which has never publicly acknowledged any wrongdoing, or expressed any hint of contrition) will regard the ruling as a validation of their aggressive business tactics. The fact remains, however, that the Microsoft monopoly is a Bad Thing(c) in and of itself, and that the unabated weight of it will continue to have a widespread negative impact on the industry, consumers, the economy, security, innovation and progress. Right now, we could impose remedies against MS (revealing source, breaking up the company) that would help mitigate these damages. But since the USDOJ and the justice system have failed to enact meaningful remedies, and given that MS is unlikely to back off their anti-competitive (and often illegal) behavior, is it not more likely now that we're headed into territory where politicians will start thinking about (God help us) regulation to "fix" the problem?
What do you think would have to happen (as if it's not bad enough already) for regulation to rear it's ugly head, and what ramifications do you think regulation would have for OSS?
---
...or we could all just start using Linux.
The real question for me: microsoft laptop tax (Score:5, Interesting)
(Unix on the desktop is here, for those of us that want it. I've been running entirely in linux and BSD on the desktop for years now).
questions (Score:5, Interesting)
Mr. Rosen--
Are you aware of why a RICO suit wasn't pushed against microsoft execs given the scuttlebutt of the strongarm tactics they used against various hardware manufacturers as regards bundling and pre-loading alternative OS's? Last I knew, extortion was a criminal and not a civil crime. To me that was a more proper venue and focus for this case, with wider ranging ramifications. Comment?
This ruling boils down to a repeat of "bad microsoft, go ahead and keep doing what you were doing more or less". so--what's next? How can the average person who's had his security threatened by their exclusionary polices leading to insecure systems in not only the private market but in the public sector react to this and in what manner? What practical recourse is left? Say you have already stopped using microsoft products. Well, big deal, I want to know when they will be removed from my tax supported government, as they are A untrustworthy and a national security risk, and B, products produced by known felons who have been allowed to skate after using illegal activities to promote and profit from flawed products, a double crime in essence. What's a next step to take, for an individual? Is there ANY sort of practical recourse to take with such a vague but clear threat from mass continual useage and deployment of their products?
thanks in advance
What happens to MS's Ill gotten gains (Score:3, Insightful)
My question is, do they get to keep their unlawfully obtained profits? If yes, is it because they settled and did not have a judgement imposed upon them? If no, what penalties in the judgement serve to revoke valuable assets/profits from MS? (I must have missed that part.)
What is involved in "cloning" a piece of software? (Score:5, Interesting)
What methods exist to create a program which is interchangeable with another, copyrighted program? Are there different rules that apply to file formats? What about network protocols, can I simply sniff my ethernet card and whatever I can deduce from the output is fair game?
What is the current legal status of 'reverse engineering' and 'disassembly' of a copyrighted program in order to create an interchangeable replacement program or alternately a program which interoperates compatibly with the original copyrighted program?
How many parties must be involved and what steps are required to reverse engineer a program? Must the party who writes the specifications be outside the U.S.? What ramifications are there for that party, i.e. can they ever write new software that competes with the program they reverse engineered without tainting the ownership of the new software?
Re:OT: Why Slashdot is so slow today (Score:2, Funny)
There is that. Then also The Register has a link to the /. early release of the MS Verdict
The world is getting even.
/. is getting Drudged and Registered.
Back on topic, kinda ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:For starters, a high-level question... (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, what better way to beat the monopoly than on the very playing field they have tried to keep us from getting near just to watch much less play. Let them waste more time and money in the courtroom and political arena. That's not where OSS shines anyway.
Chris
Re:For starters, a high-level question... (Score:2, Insightful)
Okay sure, we'll buy from someone else then. Let's go on down to Best Buy and see what our choices are...hmmm, we have a Compaq with MS Windows on it, we have an E-Machines with MS Windows on it, we have a Sony with MS Windows on it...plenty of choices aren't there?
Except for Apple, there still is really is no easy way for the average consumer to "vote" against Microsoft, and there won't be until machines pre-configured with Linux, BSD, and other alternative OS's are on the shelves.
Re:Reprisal (Score:2, Funny)
Please setup a webcam ASAP. (Score:2)
Get help! Please.
Re:Simply put... (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft did not win. Netscape, Sun, etc. did not win. The US government did not win.
Everyone lost money and, more importantly, time.
One main angst point is that MS "should not be free to enter the consumer electronics business" and that we all have "right" to have "open source, hackable consumer electronics".
I don't remember anyone pursuing anti-trust, 'you must open source or open the harware to hacking' the Nintendo Gamecube, Sega Dreamcast, or Sony Playstation 2.
Does freedom of speech include freedom to design your hardware/software anyway you want to?
Would it be perfectly legal for Microsoft to simply release a new OS version every year and obsolete the old software api's every other year to make competitor's software obsolete much much sooner. Thus forcing competitors to spend large sums of money to re-code their software for the new os version as well as support many more os platforms.
The general consensus
This is unreasonable. Microsoft could offshore it's assets to a country and have protection from US anti-trust regulations.