States Filing Alternate Remedy Proposal for MS Anti-Trust Case

cbull writes: "News.com reports that 9 states and the District of Columbia will be filing an alternate remedy proposal in the Microsoft case later today. This would close some of the loopholes, better define middleware, require Microsoft to continue Office development for Macintosh and to develop a version of Office for Linux, among other things." There's also a Cringely column about the case. Somehow the phrase "Microsoft Office for Linux" has gotten people all fired up. Do you really want a version of Office for Linux? Really?

Comments

What the article says

[epepke]

is that Microsoft would have to sell, by auction, a minimum of three licenses to enable third parties to produce versions for other operating systems "such as Linux."

It does not mean that Microsoft has to produce a Linux version. Nor does it mean that the third parties have to produce a Linux version. What it means is that at least three companies will have the right to produce a version of Office for whatever other environment they want to.

Re:Office for Linux

[jimhill]

I wish everyone would take time to read the states' proposed judgment before commenting; it would ensure that we are all discussing from a position of knowledge.

To address the "intentionally making it suck" argument, Microsoft would be required to license the necessary code to third-party vendors to do the OS ports -- Windows version code, Mac version code, whatever the licensors need. Said licensors, having paid for licenses, would have every reason to make the port as good as possible.

To address the "get around to" argument, Microsoft would be required to pre-announce upcoming releases and to provide enough information to the licensors that they can have their ports out in a timely manner. That's timely as the Court defines it, too.

This remedy is almost everything I wanted. It's better than Jackson's breakup and it's DAMNSHO better than that platter of shit served up by Ashcroft and James.

The address for comments is microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov. Owing to the anthrax hysteria, DOJ is actually asking for email rather than snail, so there's every reason to fire off a lucid, spell-checked comment to the government. Granted, the fix is in so the DOJ won't act on the feedback, but they are required to bundle it up and give it all to Judge K-K for her perusal before she ultimately decides. With enough public support for the dissenting states and contempt for the US/pet states proposal, she just might go for it. Or somewhere in-between, even. Write, write, write. Please.