Slashdot Mirror
More Details of MS/DOJ Deal
There are various news articles out at most major news sites, but they're all based on this press release from the Department of Justice. The actual terms of the settlement will probably become public shortly, so I wouldn't spend a whole lot of time trying to dissect this press release. Just read it for generalities. In sum: for this whole multi-year case, which you will recall started when Microsoft refused to obey its earlier behavior restrictions, we have more behavior restrictions, lasting only five years. And if MS doesn't obey those, they'll ... be in effect longer. Update: 11/02 15:07 GMT by M : Here are the promised terms of the settlement. Now you can dissect them. :) Update: 11/02 15:53 GMT by M : The states are refusing to sign on.
I'm not sure about anyone else, but as a long time sysadmin and web monkey, I feel like I've been violated, without the use of lubrication, by the DOJ. This "punishment" is tantamount to Br'er Rabbit getting tossed into the briar patch. The DOJ might as well change it's official title from The Department of Justice to The Micro$soft Department of Justice and Inovation.
--- Think of it as evolution in action ---
The thing is, however, MS is huge. They're so powerful that the DOJ won't be able to enforce their decision very long. MS will do whatever it wants, maybe end up in another law suit, and throw more lawyers at it. But they wouldn't do it if they weren't makeing money...so they'll do it so long as they do. The only thing that will stop MS is a consumer level loss of interest. Office XP, .NET and the new licensing system could do just that.
At least these two points caught my attention:
Disclosure of Middleware Interfaces- Microsoft will be required to provide software developers with the interfaces used by Microsoft's middleware to interoperate with the operating system. This will allow developers to create competing products that will emulate Microsoft's integrated functions.
Disclosure of Server Protocols- The Final Judgment also ensures that other non-Microsoft server software can interoperate with Windows on a PC the same way that Microsoft servers do. This is important because it ensures that Microsoft cannot use its PC operating system monopoly to restrict competition among servers. Server support applications, like middleware, could threaten Microsoft's monopoly.
If I understood correctly, they are forcing MS to open the interface specifications and protocols to others. This would be a Very Good Thing for several open source projects, for example Samba. Although I have some doubts about how effectively will this deal project into reality, this is definitely a step into a good direction.
This is the place where you write something that will make you seem like a complete idiot.
Since MSFT is no longer one of the more important stocks in the NASDAQ index (I think the index has finally shaken loose :)), is it more likely that they would try to enforce the restrictions?
æeee!
In an industry where things can change dramatically mere months, five years seems like one of the first realistic settlements related to a technology case. Microsoft is already making broad changes to how they intend to obtain revenue with their Hailstorm services, and five years from now, the company is likely to look very little like the entity they are today.
Microsoft is in the process of slowly imploding. Its .NET stuff is a disaster. Managers are wondering why all the infrastructure developed around COM/MTS have to be thrown out (or kept on life support with interop) and why all the training money spent on VB/COM is now wasted. Corporate America is also questioning more than ever the ever-increasing licensing burden being imposed. Microsoft is so laden with fat there is no way they will be able to survive the economic downturn in its current state.
Left shift 1 for e-mail...
How fun. Who wants to lay odds the USA Act gets extended until the sun no longer rises and the mountains are now more but this extension never gets used?
Oh and I totally agree with you about the document formats.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
The wording is very attractive from a layman's
view. It will be interesting to witness the legal
interpretation of the language in this agreement
as Microsoft throws lawyers at it. I certainly hope
it will enhance interoperability with large MS
applications like Exchange and Office... but I get
the feeling MS will avoid providing any
documentation that is useful to outside software
developers. Also, there is nothing to say that MS
can't charge million$ for access to those
specifications.
b
Reading the press release, the gub'ment is all happy about the restrictions on middleware.
Alrighty.
Microsoft rolled them.
Reading this, I can now put as many functions into the OS as I wish (it is not middleware), and I do not need to expose all of them (as they are not middleware). Moreover, I can insert driver layers above that which require "registration" of middleware, so that a new middleware piece has to register with the OS. I can put a function call into the OS, or some intelligence into the driver that recognizes the difference between Microsoft middleware and non-Microsoft middleware.
Moreover, this gives incentive to Microsoft to push lots of stuff into the "kernel" layers.
Microsoft is still in control, and now, they have the backing of the gub'ment.
It wasn't bad enough that NT was a big stinking pile, and W2k was the pile with a chocolate covering... Microsoft now can integrate passport like stuff into the kernel, expose a minimum of functions via "middleware" and say it has complied.
Great freakin work gub'ment. Great freakin work.
You should have broken up the beast when you had the chance. Make 2 companies, an OS company, and an applications company.
But, you blew it.
Thanks a whole helluva lot. My tax dollars at work. Helping Bill and crew .
...achieving prompt,
effective and certain relief for consumers and businesses.
(from the press release)
Prompt? After five years? Is that really prompt?
Effective? about the only thing the justice department has proven itself to be effective at is in lawyering. Short of actually whimpering and running out of the courtroom they have all but thrown in the towel.
Certain? Oh please, the certainty of this settlement can be easily seen reflected in the stock market. If the market had faith that microsoft was being forced to behave fairly, then the competitors to and middleware providers of software to microsoft would be jumping up. Borland, Symantec, Roxio, Corel. But it is not happening, because nodoby is buying the bull. I feel, as the market does, that microsoft will pay no attention to this directive, as it has not paid attention to any other court orders in the past.
www.avacal.com -- the home page of pete shaw
I don't see this working because MS will not be OPENfree, it'll charge lots for developers to get this information. Furthermore, if you are a developer and you do pay, Likely you'll not be allowed to share this info with others, as MS will make themselves the only source for this information.
I think the other thing that's missing is document format disclosure, to allow others to read and use MS office files. IMHO, MS Office has more to do with companies not leaving the windows platform than any other issue.
"The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas
It would be the death of a thousand cuts if it was sufficiently large (reps from each state) and if MS have to clear all plans with the commission in advance.
Micromanagement from the DOJ, with the IRS as a model, lots of random audits, etc.
One can only hope
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
When I originally heard about this, I thought that five years was a short amount of time. Even more so now that I read the press release.
Okay. Assuming in year 1, Microsoft publishes all of its proprietary protocols. Your company makes a program that goes head-on with something of Microsoft's. (Say, an Exchange server on Solaris, or something.)
You've got a few years to make improvements and get a really reliable and feature-filled product. Microsoft will probably throw a few kinks your way, but that's fine.
What I am wondering is... the start of year 5. I would bet money that Microsoft would go back to something new and proprietary, and my company would be locked out again. So what real incentive do I have to create a competing product that I know won't be around five years from now?
The terms against Microsoft are pretty good, but the five year window really lessens the blow. (Even more so when you know they'll wiggle against those terms all during the five years.) But I don't see it as being a big win for competition. Maybe a small window that a few can get some short-term punches in.
Actually, what it says is that this is on "certain middleware." That certainly doesn't sound like Operating Systems to me.
This "deal" is the result of Bush getting into office (I won't go so far as to say he was "elected"). The message went out to Redmond loud and clear that this was a much more monopoly-friendly administration.
.NET the overly paranoid types are whining about. Thank goodness.
Good deal, I'm glad to see my vote made a difference. Now the government can quit wasting my tax dollars on this crap.
Even better is the fact it will make them really shy about going after all the integration with XP and
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Netscape's been dead for 3 years. Every time the DOJ finally gets around to hauling Microsoft into court over some transgression, by the time they finally win the case and decide upon a remedy, the wake's over, the funeral's finished, and the body of their competitor has already been buried and left to rot.
It isn't all Microsoft's fault, though. Netscape rolled over and obediently died after the first shot was fired. Does anyone even *use* Netscape anymore? What about WordPerfect? Lotus 1-2-3? Yeah, they all *exist*, but who the hell cares? The thing is, people would probably still use these products if Microsoft hadn't spent years improving their own force-fed offerings whilst litigation was pending. What's the last "innovative", or even the last remotely interesting thing Netscape's done though? Hell, 4.7 is 3 years old, doesn't support half of HTML 3.x, and is just as buggy and unstable as ever. And don't get me started on 6!
Sure, Microsoft's done plenty of bad shit, but, with the exception of the tiny companies, they've had an awful lot of help from their competitors. I don't see this changing any time soon.
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Can we PLEASE get over the election fiasco. Neither side had clean hands in that entire affair. "Every vote should count!" - Yeah, like the 5000 military votes that got thrown out. They were both bad there.
Either way, did MS act in a monopolistic fashion? Is it a debate - of course they did? But do you want gov't regulation of the sw industry? I shudder at that. Once they get a foot in the door...
So they let MS off, big deal. Rep or Dem, they weren't going to accomplish much anyway. Let them compete (probably unfairly) against OSS anyway. I've replaced 3 MS "solutions" in as many years. J2EE on UNIX and now Linux
Look, if the product is sh!tty, the product is sh!tty, great marketing only serves as dressing up a pig. In the end, it's still a pig. But let the market decide.
If you go with MS, you get everything they offer - a nice pretty easy-to-use interface which crashes except when being used by the script kiddie across the street. Or go with and OSS solution. Yeah you need a little more knowledge than point-and-click but it just MAY be worth the effort
Computer Science is Applied Philosophy
This agreement seems like total hogwash to me. If M$ has to open up their protocols, who decides to whom they are opened?
...
If someone wants to write a program that lets server admins make a donkey jump up and down on a client's screen, will M$ let them into their labs to study protocols? I dont think so
So M$ is free to make the "applications barrier to entry" a "developers barrier to entry" instead. No change there. They'll just put up a big sign outside the Redmond Lab: "No Open Source Allowed". Redmond will decide who are "real" developers and who arent, and make pretty damn sure they only let their friends in...
Im not a techie, but: How can they protect their intellectual properties if their code gets included in open source projects?
The only way to ensure full access for every developer, including open source, is to *publish the source code*.
/penhead
Taken from the website [microsoft.com], at the top
5. The United States will publish a notice informing the public of the proposed Final Judgment and public comment period in the Washington Post and the San Jose Mercury News, for seven days over a period of two weeks commencing no later than November 15, 2001.
6. Members of the public may submit written comments about the proposed Final Judgment to a designated official of the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice for a period of 60 days after publication of the proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement in the Federal Register.
7. Within 30 days after the close of the 60-day public comment period, the United States will file with the Court and publish in the Federal Register any comments it receives and its response to those comments.
So, if we don't like it, we should file a comment. if enough people file comments maybe they will get it that this is unsatisfactory to the populus.
I think this about sums it up. Micosoft can still screw over developers that are trying to compete with them.
"J. No provision of this Final Judgment shall:
1. Require Microsoft to document, disclose or license to third parties: (a) portions of APIs or Documentation or portions or layers of Communications Protocols the disclosure of which would compromise the security of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights management, encryption or authentication systems, including without limitation, keys, authorization tokens or enforcement criteria; or (b) any API, interface or other information related to any Microsoft product if lawfully directed not to do so by a governmental agency of competent jurisdiction.
2. Prevent Microsoft from conditioning any license of any API, Documentation or Communications Protocol related to anti-piracy systems, anti-virus technologies, license enforcement mechanisms, authentication/authorization security, or third party intellectual property protection mechanisms of any Microsoft product to any person or entity on the requirement that the licensee: (a) has no history of software counterfeiting or piracy or willful violation of intellectual property rights, (b) has a reasonable business need for the API, Documentation or Communications Protocol for a planned or shipping product, (c) meets reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its business, (d) agrees to submit, at its own expense, any computer program using such APIs, Documentation or Communication Protocols to third-party verification, approved by Microsoft, to test for and ensure verification and compliance with Microsoft specifications for use of the API or interface, which specifications shall be related to proper operation and integrity of the systems and mechanisms identified in this paragraph."
bash-2.04$
bash-2.04$yes "Don't you hate dialup connections?"| write USERNAME
From my admittedly non-expert reading of the settlement, OEMs may develop, use, distribute, sell, and promote alternative operating systems like Linux without fear, but when it comes to shipping said operating systems with a personal computer, the document has this to say:
These terms are terrible for Linux, because it means that the big OEMs will still have to include Windows on every system. It's no better than the bad old days where OEMs were charged a license for every machine shipped, Windows or not.I can't wait to see the microsoft docs for their protocols ...
Take a look at MSDN, most of them are there already. Microsoft has a million documented hooks in the OS for customizing and adding things, and very few people ever use them.
Windows Media Player's ability to burn CD's, for example, is provided through the Image Mastering API, which other apps can use, and which is documented well enough that a competitor could replace it.
Also, the bundled ability is so lame that it's going to be replaced by most people - you can't burn an ISO with it, for example, only CD audio discs or discs with files on them (and then, you have very little control).
Apple has CD burning in the Mac OS (look at their ads - they're making a big deal out of it) yet Microsoft adding it to Windows is evil. *shrug*
1. MS fought over the language in one sentence that the DOJ, or noone else noticed, that made the entire concent decree totally unenforceable. (something about the vague term "consumer benefit")
2. When the DOJ tried to stop IE/Win98 using the Consent Decree, they were eventually over turned when CLEARLY the Consent Decree was meant to stop MS from bundling, even if the a few words allowed them to wiggle out of it.
3. It took YEARS after this mess to get any form of judgement against MS, when any moron can clearly see they have a 90+% control over the computer market and use that control to run other companies out of business.
So...People should scour the judgement for ANYTHING that could remotely let them wiggle out of any part of the judgement. It's there, I guarantee you. Not only that, NOTHING stops MS from totally ignoring the consent decree because by time the DOJ or anyone else gets around to actually getting a legal judgement, whatever MS did would be irrelevent and irreversible. Any complicated consent decree is crap and is most likely unenforceable (due to the possibility of making "complicated" legal aguements that can tie of the system).
Which is why I would propose the following SIMPLE easy to enforce rules...
1. MS charges all OEMs the SAME price for Windows regardless of who they are.
2. MS should not be allowed to buy any companies, patents, or technologies for at least 5 years.
3. MS should not be allowed to license any additional technologies, patents, source code or ideas for at least 5 years.
4. OEM's should have the right to make any changes to Windows they think their customers want, including but not limited to removing any feature, or technology from Windows and replacing it with their own.
Burn Hollywood Burn
As I read the agreement, it doesn't force MS to publish their protocols. Instead it says that MS must only disclose the middleware and communications protocols to entities with business models that they (MS!!!) determines are viable. I am pretty sure that MS does not consider OpenSource a viable business model.
In their favor, when you do an agreement like this, you don't want to have to cater to every 2-bit business. Open source is not 2-bit but yet is not a viable business in MS' eyes.
The parts of the agreement that I read doesn't say anything about publishing the specs. I assume that the secure facility that MS provides is so they can keep their secrets secret. I assume you have to sign an iron-clad NDA to see the protocols.
Take a look at section III.J, which shields Microsoft from having to disclose any authorization or authentication wire protocols. This loophole would allow Microsoft to maintain the secrecy of their BDC and PDC protocols, thereby locking out Samba. Ditto the III.J terms which require the company to have a 'verifiable business plan', on Microsoft's terms, in order to get release of this information. Likewise, Microsoft is able to force vendors who get access to the API's and protocols not to release them to the public.
All of these terms put together will shield Microsoft from revealing any interoperability information if the protocol in question includes authorization or authentication (which all protocols of significance will do), and will shield Microsoft in any case from having to let the grubby open sourcers get their hands on the info.
Yuck. Microsoft has very good lawyers, indeed.
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
Also, remember that if a private company (e.g., what's left of Be) decides to sue Microsoft over its tactics, Microsoft can no longer use that "aw, shucks, we're not a monopoly, no sir" defense.
And at the end of the five-year period, if Microsoft reverts to its old tactics ... well, they'll be just as illegal in the future as they are now.
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
At the very least, the 18 State Attorneys General who were the original co-plaintiffs should be able to sue for enforcement. Ideally other parties should be able to do likewise (with reasonable provisions to discourage frivolous suits). Enforcement shouldn't be left to the US DOJ.
But then, the settlement would actually have teeth in it. The Redmond Borg would never agree to anything but a toothless settlement.
Fizz
"H. Starting at the earlier of the release of Service Pack 1 for Windows XP or 12 months after the submission of this Final Judgment to the Court, Microsoft shall: ..."
So what this means is that Service Pack 1 for XP will be delayed until 12 Monthes, 1 day from the time this goes into effect.
III C 3
discussing launching of 3rd party software:
"... provided that any such Non-Microsoft Middleware displays on the desktop no user interface or a user interface of similar size and shape to the user interface displayed by the corresponding Microsoft Middleware."
does that mean that 3rd party software is ok so long as it doesn't have a square window?
(or nearly square, it does say similar)
J. No provision of this Final Judgment shall:
1. Require Microsoft to document, disclose or license to third parties: (a)portions of APIs or Documentation or portions or layers of Communications Protocols the disclosure of which would compromise the security of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights management, encryption or authentication systems, including without limitation, keys, authorization tokens or enforcement criteria; or (b)any API, interface or other information related to any Microsoft product if lawfully directed not to do so by a governmental agency of competent jurisdiction.
2. Prevent Microsoft from conditioning any license of any API, Documentation or Communications Protocol related to anti-piracy systems, anti-virus technologies, license enforcement mechanisms, authentication/authorization security, or third party intellectual property protection mechanisms of any Microsoft product to any person or entity on the requirement that the licensee: (a)has no history of software counterfeiting or piracy or willful violation of intellectual property rights, (b)has a reasonable business need for the API, Documentation or Communications Protocol for a planned or shipping product, (c)meets reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its business, (d)agrees to submit, at its own expense, any computer program using such APIs, Documentation or Communication Protocols to third-party verification, approved by Microsoft, to test for and ensure verification and compliance with Microsoft specifications for use of the API or interface, which specifications shall be related to proper operation and integrity of the systems and mechanisms identified in this paragraph.
Most of what they will fail to document and disclose here is pretty important. I can imagine what MS will claim they cannot share due to 'encryption and authentication systems': the ability to log onto Passport with something other than IE. And then, they want to be able to restrict what you do with the info they are provide.
Notwithstanding the foregoing Section III.H.2, the Windows Operating System Product may invoke a Microsoft Middleware Product in any instance in which:
that Microsoft Middleware Product would be invoked solely for use in interoperating with a server maintained by Microsoft (outside the context of general Web browsing), or
that designated Non-Microsoft Middleware Product fails to implement a reasonable technical requirement (e.g., a requirement to be able to host a particular ActiveX control) that is necessary for valid technical reasons to supply the end user with functionality consistent with a Windows Operating System Product, provided that the technical reasons are described in a reasonably prompt manner to any ISV that requests them.
I'm pretty sure that everything but IE would fail that ability to 'host a particular ActiveX control', and I can only imagine what their definition of 'reasonably prompt' would be. And as above, if it's related to 'authentication/authorization security', you may be required to submit your code to for approval.
And then, of course, a lot of these sections also relate to DRM and the changes coming once whatever version of the SSS(however many Ss)CA legislation gets passed, eventually.
What I do like :
C. Microsoft shall not restrict by agreement any OEM licensee from exercising any of the following options or alternatives:
(....)
4. Offering users the option of launching other Operating Systems from the Basic Input/Output System or a non-Microsoft boot-loader or similar program that launches prior to the start of the Windows Operating System Product.
Hopefully we will be seeing some dual boot systems available from OEMs. That will make things a lot easier for some people to even try an alternative OS.
Oh well. With Bush saying before he was elected 'A Bush administration will favor innovation over litigation', this is still better than I expected.
Juln
I'm less sure about this. I know this'll reach a less than receptive audience here, but I've got users that still complain about moving to Word from WordPerfect four YEARS ago.
.doc format. They've still got 90% of the office suite market, so they change over to another format the next day. Freeware suites can't keep up, and Microsoft still wins.
I think the problem might be similar to a situation described by Pendergrast in his excellent book on Coca-cola. The exact formula for Coke is a deeply guarded secret, which makes it interesting to others. Pendergrast asked for a copy, and the Coke exec he was talking to claimed it didn't matter, and said something along the lines of:
"Let's say I give you the formula," handing over a blank sheet of paper. "Now, what do you do with it? You can't possibly compete with our economies of scale, distribution channels, marketing, or name recognition. In effect, you'll be offering a product that allegedly tastes the same as Coke, only at a higher price."
Similar situation here. Let's say MS hands over the
Unless the free suites can both a) keep up with the changes, and b) deliver a better value proposition than Office (remember that support and selling the idea to PHBs is also involved here), delivering those formats won't make any difference.
I hope I'm wrong, but....
ceci n'est pas un sig.
Shouldn't someone post a copy of the goatse.cx picture with "DOJ" tatooed on his ass?
Let them go, straight to their demise. The more power they have to tax and annoy their users the faster their users will leave. They've alread run off their developers. Now they can run off their users. What are companies going to do when Java and Samba don't work for them? Switch to activeX and IIS with all their security holes? No, they are going to be fed up with it all. The true cost of M$ greed is apparent as more users and companies jump ship and brag about it. Bad practices will undo them and the end is closer than they think.
It's amazing how little people know about alternatives to M$. They are unaware of what it even looks like. "Gee, that looks very windows like", is a comment I get when people at work get a glimps at my laptop, or see pictures from home. It bothers many of them because they were encouraged to buy M$ stock as part of our company's "empowerment". Before I knew that, I made the mistake of answering the question, "Why is M$ stock rising today?", shouted across the cubicles with, "Because people are stupid? I don't know." Oh my, stunned silence. Yet they know, because they suffer.
Linus, BSD, Apple, Sun and the US govrnment won't beat M$, M$ will ruin themselves. The harder they make it for others to develop, "compete" they call it, the more trouble they put their users through, and the more expensive they make it all, the faster they will change or die. I don't think they can change. They have already created a huge potential. As users learn the new path of least resistance, the current trickle of user conversions will become a flood that will make the early 90s adoption of Win3.1 look slow and small.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Like the title says. I'm sure the second the independant inspectors look at things, Microsoft will be as unwelcome to them as Bagdad was to the UN Inspectors.
Inspector: "Look, we have this document that proves your violating the agreement!"
MS: "No, I'm sorry, that document is copyrighted and protected by patent law. You can't show that to anybody."
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
Since Microsoft has a monopoly, competitors (e.g. StarOffice) can only realistically compete if they can read and write Microsoft file formats. Competitors, however, cannot do this reliably if the formats keep changing.
In other words, the DoJ settlement does not do what is necessary to introduce competition into the software-applications market. So, it seems to be a failure.
Folks,
All I can say is if you are unhappy with the DOJ ruling, then voice your opinion right now to your state AG. And don't wait, they are likely to sign off on this as of Tuesday. The only thing politicians care about is getting elected. The only thing they fear is the absence of your support. Use your voice. Vote with your feet.
Middleware, Start Button, Shortcut, Icons (specifically desktop icons in this instance), Service Pack, XP.......
And here are some seemingly contradictory definitions:
So middleware is something doesn't actually come on the windows CD, but a m$ middleware product is the JavaVM,IE,Windows Media player,etc. Don't those all come on the CD?
there are 2 kinds of people. those who divide people into 2 kinds, and those who don't.
Are there any plausible arguments that disclosure of any API can ever harm security?
The only kinds of security where API secrecy is critical (at least that I can think of) are the digital equivalents of leaving the key under the door mat and hoping nobody looks there. Given the lengths people go to crack systems just out of curiosity (e.g. monitoring power fluctations in smart cards to recover keys), it seems rather ridiculous to think that failing to document an entry point into a DLL is going to stop even relatively unsophisticated crackers.
There is absolutely no reason for this provision other than rank technical ignorance or skullduggery.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Can someone explain to me how you can win the trial, win the appeal, have the Supremes deny cert to the defendant, and then let the perps walk?
Classic case of winning all the battles and losing the war through bad generalship.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
Tacked on to the end of this:
J. No provision of this Final Judgment shall:
1. Require Microsoft to document, disclose or license to third parties: (a)portions of APIs or Documentation or portions or layers of Communications Protocols the disclosure of which would compromise the security of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights management, encryption or authentication systems, including without limitation, keys, authorization tokens or enforcement criteria; or (b)any API, interface or other information related to any Microsoft product if lawfully directed not to do so by a governmental agency of competent jurisdiction.
2. Prevent Microsoft from conditioning any license of any API, Documentation or Communications Protocol related to anti-piracy systems, anti-virus technologies, license enforcement mechanisms, authentication/authorization security, or third party intellectual property protection mechanisms of any Microsoft product to any person or entity on the requirement that the licensee: (a)has no history of software counterfeiting or piracy or willful violation of intellectual property rights, (b)has a reasonable business need for the API, Documentation or Communications Protocol for a planned or shipping product, (c)meets reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its business, (d)agrees to submit, at its own expense, any computer program using such APIs, Documentation or Communication Protocols to third-party verification, approved by Microsoft, to test for and ensure verification and compliance with Microsoft specifications for use of the API or interface, which specifications shall be related to proper operation and integrity of the systems and mechanisms identified in this paragraph.
So right off, this means that Microsoft can continue to do whatever they want with MS-Kerberos and don't have to give out the source code or license the patented parts, because it's an "authentication system". Same goes for Passport. And this is just the beginning, because Microsoft can embed whatever they want into the security, authentication, etc., subsystems, there is no language to prevent this. And they will, they've got a history of doing exactly that, look at how parts of the IE code got mingled with unrelated library files to support Microsoft's IE bundling strategem.
This settlement is worth exactly as much as the 1995 consent decree.
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Imagine if your local power company was a conglomerate that could also compete with your toaster maker company.
Microsoft Power & Light decides to change the voltages to everybody's home every three years, requiring a complete change to all the appliances and home systems. This suits you fine as it drives more toaster sales, so while you question the ethical validity of these changes, the havoc it creates and the incredible costs it imposes on the community, the business model is there- you are on board.
MSP&L tries to enter into the toaster market, but they can't make a toaster as good as you. You think all you have to do is continue to make a better toaster- you poor deluded fool.
MSP&L approaches you and says hey we will force all the homeowners to have a specific plug and voltage for toasters, sign up with us and we can guarantee you your share of the toaster market and we'll get our share. You don't dare refuse because the implied threat is that the proprietary toaster plug can be used to lock you out just as easily as lock you in. The consumers go along because you set the quality standards and if you are on board it must be an okay plug standard, and besides those malfunctioning MSP&L toasters are mighty cheap. Now all of a sudden you are a 'strategic business partner', desperately hoping that MSP&L or an appliance giant will buy you out.
MSP&L has locked you into a standard under their control, but now some MS VP genius decides that toasters are strategic (it's not an appliance, it's ad-revenue!). They mess with the voltages every year so your toasters malfunction and their toasters work until you spend valuable design and retool time 'fixing' your toaster. They create SmarToaster technology that sends email recipes to their toasters to enhance the toaster experience and incidentally deliver ads, actually their real revenue stream in the toaster market. The convection/microwave people are destroying your upper-end toaster market, so you are totally squeezed. Then to finish you off, MSP&L gives toasters (which they finally have kind of working) to everyone during the next voltage change. You are done for.
But hey our government is here for you! The DoJ comes by and says, gosh that's wrong, MSP&L cannot use their power monopoly to squash the toaster market, MSP&L play nice. MSP&L agrees, then builds the NeToaster standard that requires you to use a certified bread or pastry and you can't remove the ads. ActiveOvenLife cries out for justice because they can't impose their own toaster standard on all the households. Now the DoJ says okay MSP&L, play nicer. Don't you feel good ex-toaster guy?
Hmmmm, maybe you should have lobbied for standard electricity settings instead of letting greed get to you, treated the power company as a monopoly utility and allowed everyone to build the best appliances that compete on their merits. Open source electricity standards and government-regulated power? That's just wacky and unAmerican!
The truly frightening thing is that if Microsoft continues to get away with this, the rest of the corporate world will follow suit and we will end up with crazy costs, financial and personal, in all sorts of real life situations like the above.
The excellent railroads, electricity, roads and telecommunications infrastructure that all Americans enjoy did not happen by accident. It was a combination of visionaries, greedy people and governmental community laws that gave us industries and standards that work.
If the Microsoft culture is allowed to dominate computing, then we will experience what our forefathers avoided by stopping railroad magnates or Standard Oil from controlling the lifeblood of our nation. God help us if we have failed to learn those lessons.
________________________________________ History Must Not Fall Into The Wrong Hands ___________________________________
The and at the end of bullet ii exists solely for the purpose of eliminating such ambiguity.