Slashdot Mirror
States Demand Windows Source Code
Zeb writes: "Looks like the states who are continuing the anti-trust case
don't believe MS' claim that they cannot provide a stripped down version of Windows. They want MS to release the source code so they can verify MS' claims . Maybe MS shot itself in the foot here?" The Register has a story as well.
Wouldn't this cause the trial penalties to be further delayed? I mean delaying plays into MS hands as it gains further marketshare. How long would it possibly take to have an indepedent team verify MS's claims it cannot offer a stripped down Windows?
just ask *explicitly* for a buildable source tree.
then build it, it would pre pretty simple to figure it out.
"Contrary to popular belief, UNIX is user friendly. It just happens to be selective on who it makes friendship with"
Not going to rehash all the "It'll take years to understand..." comments, that's obvious enough. So what does all this mean? Insert IANAL disclaimer.
Source released openly: What the states are asking for. This really won't get them anywhere. MS has been declared a monopolist, and going back like this is akin to going back to the murder scene for more evidence after the killer's been convicted. It doesn't do them any good other than to cause MS nightmares about their IP being compromised. Needless to say, MS hates this idea. Expect to see a scathing rebuttal within a couple of days. (Historical note: This is what one prosecutor did in the DeCSS case... put the code in as open/unsealed evidence, making it part of the public record. oops!) OSS advocates would love this idea, but without the compilation capabilities, it doesn't do Joe Sixpack any good unless MS accepts patches submitted by the public and makes them available for download.
Source released under seal: Same as an open release, but the source code doesn't get published, and only those people approved by the court get to see it. Takes even more time, more money, and accomplishes just as little. Only here, MS doesn't have to lose sleep over IP loss, just take care of a nasty migraine. Joe Sixpack gains nothing.
No release: Obvious victory for MS, but the case moves on faster than it would have otherwise, which (as we all know) MS does't want. Joe Sixpack doesn't get anything here, either.
I suspect that one of these choices is incorrect. Correct.
Could the states higher experts, possibly former MS employees to guide them through the code or would that be seen as a conflict of interest since the technical experts in question are former employees? There has to be a lot of people who have worked with the windows source code over the years.
It would take a week or so, max.
If the court orders this and selects competent experts, they aren't going to wait while MS prepares a very special set of media. They will send in Federal Marshals to take control of the MS servers containing all source code for anything that ends up on the Windows OEM disc and copy *everything* on them. MS won't regain access to its systems until the experts can build the Windows OEM disc on their own systems.
If Microsoft claims it doesn't know where all of the source code is stored (yeah, right), that's not a problem. The Marshals can seize the entire Redmond campus just as easily as they can seize a few server rooms. They should be able to seize the computers and media from all offices within a week or so, then they can sort it out back in the lab. Microsoft can easily afford to replace all of those computers. (The contents are another matter, but they'll have to request copies from the Marshals.)
Think this is unrealistic? Ask any victim of a BSA raid - and they've only been alleged of doing something wrong. Microsoft has had its day in court, been found guilty (and this verdict has been sustained on appeal), and is now being told to sustain its claims during the penalty phase.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Being modular is part of the problem. The entire help system, the file system explorer, large parts of applications and so on are all reliant upon the HTML rendering engine of Internet Explorer.
Honestly, Microsoft should just remove iexplore.exe from the system and say "There we've removed IE." and leave it at that. Instead they are arguing semantics with people who are technically incompetent.
I also don't see an argument for why we need a diversity of operating systems. Or rather, why you feel we don't already today have a diversity of operating systems. Linux is available, so is various forms of MacOS, BSD and so on. Fact is there is probably a wider variety of operating systems available today than at any other time in the history of personal computing.
The fact that not all of these operating systems are on equal footing in terms of hardware and software support is a result of effeciences of scale. The scale argument is the reason against diverse operating environments.(I include the hardware in along with the OS)
This is the CRIMINAL anti-trust case, not the civil anti-trust case that MS tried to get dismissed by having the education market handed to it.
This is action is also being taken during the penalty phase after conviction of criminal charges. That eliminates any legal presumption of innocence - the legal burden is now on the convicted party to prove innocence, not the state to prove guilt. (That's also why it's so hard to get convictions overturned even when new evidence is discovered.)
As for the bench warrant, all it requires is that the judge believe that the most expedient way to resolve the matter is to seize those servers. I doubt there are many experts who would look at Microsoft's performance during the trial phase and not foresee months of stonewalling unless the experts had full access to all source from the first day - and that would require seizure. I would expect many experts would make this a condition of serving in this role, to avoid wasting their own time.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
There's buildable and there's legible. I can see MS complying with the letter of such an order by running the source code through obfuscate.pl and delivering *that*. Sure, the code is FUNCTIONALLY the same, but you waste State money trying to decypher the source code.
Finding God in a Dog
If a component the application relies on can be used w/o invoking the application, then it's fair to argue it's not part of the application. Where a component starts life isn't particularly relevant except as history/philology.
I remember the days where some PC apps had their own TCP/IP implementations built-in. Then, a bit later, most of them started to use winsock, which became a dll eventually. Now it's a system wide resource.
Or to continue the car analogy: many of the electrical components of a car could have their own battery, but didn't -- because the battery/alternator system that supported the electric ignition was already there. This served as a good platform for adding other electric/electronic devices to the car. And yet replacing the starter motor does not mean that I have to replace anything else. Can you say the battery/alternator is PART of the starter motor? Or Headlamps? Dashboard electronics? Radio?
Generally useful pieces of applications will tend to migrate outside the app -- because programmers know it's better to reuse rather than reinvent (if you can understand the API, anyway). The HTML renderer is an important system component now. The IE application is not. If the analogy doesn't demonstrate that clearly, the actions of the 98Lite team do.
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.