Separate Code Files And Commingling?

ScottyB writes: "According to an article in the Washington Post, 'Microsoft Seeks to Revisit Code Ruling,' Microsoft is asking the Appeals Court to revisit the 'commingling' issue in its ruling." As the article states, "'Microsoft did not commingle software code specific to Web browsing with software code used for other purposes in the same files,' the company said. 'Rather, in organizing software code into files, Microsoft placed related functions close to one another' to benefit users.'" Wouldn't being in the same binaries or binary distribution constitute commingling?"

Comments

An example of commingling?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I have an interesting example of MS commingling. I've never read about it anywhere else, but it's certainly odd to me.

Everybody knows the standard C library function strcpy(). (Well, not everybody, but you get the point :)... it's been around since the year dot.)

For some reason, Microsoft introduced a new function called StrCpy. An MS-specific extension to the standard C library, no doubt a combination of convenience and locking coders in to Windows specific code... no surprise there.

What is surprising is that any application that uses this function can only be run on a computer with IE4.0 or later!

So this means that even applications that don't use IE in any way at all, suddenly find themselves requiring IE4 to be installed on the computer.

I discovered this when I inherited a small win32 application at work. It was just a small dialog-based application, but on computers without IE4 or later installed, it just wouldn't work.

Very strange, and smells of commingling to me.

(BTW, see here, and here, for details.)

Files irrelevant; User Interface is all important

[crow]

The files in the distribution are irrelevalant. Who cares if Windows ships with all sorts of unrelated Microsoft .exe and .dll files?

What matters here is the user interface. If Microsoft had included Internet Explorer, but required users to download one key piece (that added the icon to the desktop and start menu; nothing else), then Netscape would have been on a level playing field. The issue is what's visible to the user, not the nature of obscure files that Joe User will never care about.

Of course, Microsoft's problem is that they bought into the government's arguement that the browsers and operating systems are legitimate markets to distinguish. Microsoft should have argued that they are really in the user interface market, and as such, the operating system and browser are naturally related.

A summary

[mcfiddish]

So far ...

Judge 1: You're guilty. And you suck.

MS: You're wrong. I want to ask Judge 2.

Judge 2: You're guilty. Judge 1, that "you suck" was out of line.

MS: What a victory! Now, Judge 2, we still think you're wrong. Can you reconsider?

My prediction ...

Judge 2: You're guilty. And you know what? You do suck.

Re:A summary

[1010011010]

Jackson was the 2nd judge. Remember the 1995 Consent Decree?

Judge Sporkin's comments on the consent decree:
"It is clear to this Court that if it signs the decree presented to it, the message will be that Microsoft is so powerful that neither the market nor the Government is capable of dealing with all of its monopolistic practices. The attitude of Microsoft confirms these observations. While it has denied publicly that it engages in anticompetitive practices, it refuses to give the Court in any respect the same assurance. It has refused to take even a small step to meet any of the reasonable concerns that have been raised by the Court."

Judge Sporkin: Microsoft's Unwitting Ally, an interesting article from The Computer Lawyer (March 1995).
"On February 14, 1995, Federal Judge Stanley Sporkin refused to approve the consent decree negotiated between the U.S. Government and Microsoft to settle the antitrust complaint filed against Microsoft by the Government. Many think that this denial is a harsh blow against Microsoft. In fact, it may be very helpful to Microsoft for several reasons:
*It started an appellate process during which Microsoft will not be bound by any decree and after which any decree might be obsolete.
*It has caused an important adversary of Microsoft -- the government -- to become an advocate for Microsoft.
*It may well lessen the likelihood that the Government will investigate or take enforcement actions against other Microsoft anticompetitive practices.
*It may focus on a practice -- vaporware -- which is not illegal and which is fairly commonplace."

Civil Action No.: 94-1564, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, vs. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant. Stanley Sporkin, Judge.

The Judge Who Rejected Microsoft / Stanley Sporkin is known as aggressive, unpredictable , S.F. Gate, 2/16/95
"Assigned to review the settlement, he could have rubber-stamped it, which was what both sides wanted. Instead, he peeled the respectability off the agreement like layers of skin off an onion, exposing it as an unenforceable deal that let the government save face while letting Microsoft off the hook.
In his lengthy, fiercely worded ruling, Sporkin characterized Microsoft as having monopolistic practices that pose ``a potential threat to the nation's well-being,'' and he called the consent decree ``too little, too late.''"


- - - - -

Delaying tactics

[aralin]

They are just using every single legal way how to delay the case from getting back to lower court which could assign some immediate remedies based on upholding of the findings of facts. I can see that they just try to ship WinXP before the court can even consider the case...

Re:Whaaa?

[malfunct]

I what is going on here is that many browser sub functions are VERY useful in other applications. So useful in fact that they were included as functions in the OS as part of the many and numerous other modules that are part of the OS.

For instance the httpRequest module. It used to be that the only software that needed to make httpRequests was the web browser and so just making those functions a part a stand alone application was all good. MS however noticed that you could use http as a perfectly valid protocol for many other network requests (often that would have proprietary modules to make) and so made a module that could make those requests and because it was useful to all applications (including IE) they put that module in the OS instead of a separate distribution. Again the same thing happens with the html parser/renderer, it works great for help files and documentation for a vast host of applications, so useful in fact that they write it into its own module and include that with the OS so all other applications can use that functionality for free. Same happens for many other modules that can be used for multiple applications but started as functions of IE.

Now we go back to IE and look at what it needs, something to make network requests, something to render the content it recieves, other things that are not available as modules in the OS. So MS writes a wrapper (which turns out to be like 500k or something silly and small like that) that hosts all those controls and makes calls between them and whoa its a web browser.

If an OS were to have made all those functions (httpRequests, html rendering, ftp requests, menue options) part of the API before ever having written a web browser noone would argue that they were just trying to give benifit to as many applications as possible. Noone would say they are trying to corner the browser market would they? They would be touting the ease of application development on that platform because of all the neat high level modules that are included.

Granted MS stole ALL the code for these modules from the IE project. I will give you that they DID try to become the dominant browser by including that wrapper in thier OS so that people could have a web browser with out downloading a single thing. I think they big mistake they made is by saying IE couldn't be removed, they should have maintained from the VERY BEGINNING that sure it can be taken out and shown people how to delete the icons and wrapper DLL and then everyone would be happy at this point.

Now back to the commingling charges, if the modules in suspect (which just have to be the httpRequest and html parser/renderer) were ONLY useful to IE and were not use in ANY other programs by ANY other manufacturers then there would be a great argument that MS only moved them to the OS for the benifit of IE. I maintain however that there are MANY programs that use the modules and some of them are not even web browsing applications and so it should be apparant that these modules are of value to an OS that wants easy development to be possible.

Its sad that what is arguably the largest monopoly case in history could well have been never started (they would have come with another reason to go after MS I'm sure) if MS would have let people delete less than 1 meg of files from there system.

It would have been great if MS would have just added the modules to the OS and then advertised worlds smallest web browser, only 500 or 600k total installed :)

MS should know - GPL covers this

[sulli]

and as you all should know, MS distributes various utilities under the GPL. GPL says clearly, emphasis added:

2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

[...]

b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

[...]

These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program.

In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.

I think this is quite clear in delineating what is "commingled" vs. what is not - and it's on their website!

No, files ARE relevant!

[tswinzig]

The files in the distribution are irrelevalant. Who cares if Windows ships with all sorts of unrelated Microsoft .exe and .dll files?

The way Microsoft forced MSIE onto everyone before they could integrate it with Windows was to include the MSIE install on all Microsoft software. Worse yet, practically every Microsoft product in that time period required MSIE to be installed, because commingled with those MSIE DLL functions were general-use functions that the other software took advantage of, and Microsoft would not allow people to install just the DLL's required. This is the same reason why programs like Quicken required MSIE to be installed, and didn't just ship with the "free" Microsoft DLL's that contained the code they needed.

THIS is how Microsoft used it's monopoly to force everyone to install MSIE, regardless of whether you ever upgraded Windows to a version that included MSIE.

And once you've got MSIE installed and constantly loaded into memory, it becomes real easy to eventually give up using Netscape et. al.

Okay, that's strange

[Dave Rickey]

Wasn't MS claiming, all through the run-up to the trial, that they *couldn't* accede to the demands of the anti-trust team because there wasn't any way to unscramble the egg, the OS and IE were completely integrated?

Now they are claiming that the location of the relevant function calls right next to each other in the source code is something they did to help the *users*? Errmm, excuse me, but even a Windows *developer* doesn't care about the location in code of the function calls, only whether they are well documented in how you call them (which is a whole different rant). What the hell would a *user* care?

Basicly, it looks to me like they're trying to avoid admitting they scattered IE functions throughout un-related code in order to bolster their original claims, now that those claims have been found to be bogus and that was upheld on the appeal.

--Dave Rickey

Microsoft = Innovation...

[Corporate Drone]

stop the presses! to benefit users, Microsoft has created a new performance metric: Average Distance Between Bytes! Wow! IE minimizes ADBB! Now I feel a lot better!