Red Hat CTO Testifies at MS trial

An anonymous reader writes "Red Hat CTO Michael Tiemann testified on behalf of the 9 states in MS's trial. From the article on SF Gate: "Red Hat Chief Technology Officer Michael Tiemann said Microsoft adds 'extensions' to critical communications methods that computers use to transmit security information, print, and perform other tasks. Those extensions are proprietary to Microsoft, he said, and despite recent actions Microsoft has not been forthcoming in releasing details of those changes.""

Comments

Auction off an Office [source?] License?

[Ami Ganguli]

Quoted from The Washington Post:

Among other things, the states would require that Microsoft to auction off a license to Linux re-sellers to carry the Office package of programs, which would make Linux more attractive to computer makers and users.

This is an interesting proposal that I hadn't heard about before. Does anybody have a complete list of what the unsettling states have asked for?

How can you ask that?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well

Technically, if they decide to hold out long enough, they can do nearly anything they like.

Unfortunately, most likely, the 9 states think that holding out more will eventually lead microsoft to offering those states lots of money to make them go away. (I still say the recent tobacco-company settlements in texas and elsewhere are going to have bad consequences for just years to come...)

However, they are, like, you know, sovereign states. As the representatives of the law of those states, if those 9 attorneys general just keep holding out, as long as they feel MS has violated the fair business practice laws of their states, they have it perfectly within their rights to (they can at LEAST do this much) block MS from selling software in that state.. which would be a horrible catastrophe for microsoft, not so much because they couldn't make money in that state but just because software sales in that state would suddenly become a huge source of funding for any new or existant company or companies that might want to become serious competitors to microsoft. That state would become a neat little hole in the software market barrier to entry.. and microsoft depends on that barrier to entry being impenatrable.

This has nothing to do with what the states *can* do. The states are, well, remember, *sovereign states*. They set the rules within their boundaries, except where amendments to the U.S. constitution stop them. The states can do what they like, and since microsoft has is currently in the eyes and laws of the states an outlaw awaiting judgement, the attourneys general and state courts can render judgement however they see fit.

The question is what the states *will* do-- when will the attourneys general give up and wander off, or be rotated out of office and replaced with pro-monopoly equivilents.

I don't think anyone realizes exactly how big the amount of power these states hold at the moment. Microsoft's banking almost everything on the hope that these states will eventually be placated by some settlements and turn around a couple times, forget anything happened, and go to sleep..

But if they don't.. and the states decide that justice carried out against microsoft really is what they want, and decide to exert their power as soverign states.. they can pretty much do what they want.