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.
Here is another look at the settlement. I think this view is closer to the truth.
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.
Ow, my wrist.
324006
...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
Paying for software on a subscription system will be about as pleasant as standing outside in a hailstorm. So I guess MS picked a good name.
Constitutionally Correct
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.
I'm pretty sure my pastor said in church last week that when the Final Judgement comes Bill Gates will be going to Hell. Something about avarice, gluttony, sloth, etc. Let's hear it for the DoJ recognising who's really in charge here.
Karma: Bored. (Thinking about resurrecting the "Anyone else is an imposter" joke.)
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.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
That's no moon.
In III.A: Nothing in this provision shall prohibit Microsoft from enforcing any provision of any license with any OEM or any intellectual property right that is not inconsistent with this Final Judgment.
Put that together with III.J: J. No provision of this Final Judgment shall... 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
We've all seen the proposed text of the SSSCA. That says that everything which processes digital information must have security protocols for enforcing digital "rights", i.e. copyrights. Even though signs are promising that the SSSCA per se will go down in flames, it's not too much of a stretch to suppose that some legislation, at some point, will get passed which does define anything capable of processing digital data as capable of illegally copying intellectual property-- since it, of course, is. So, put that together with this loophole up here, and suddenly Microsoft can argue that they don't have to tell anybody absolutely anything about any of their protocols because it would "compromise anti-piracy systems".
Never mind the whole Microsoft "security through obscurity" argument: they're always saying that Windows is more secure because nobody sees its source code, so therefore it's harder to hack into those systems. We know it's bull$#!+, but they argue it a lot. It doesn't take much of a stretch for them to argue that their protocols are more secure if they are hidden... and then they can rest nicely in this loophole right again. They can continue "embrace and extend" monopolistic policies, making their own protocols and keeping them hidden, while claiming to maintain full compliance with this judgement, since after all they're only keeping the stuff hidden for "security reasons."
Microsoft has been slapped with a wet noodle. This is ridiculous.
Foo.
-Rob
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