Slashdot Mirror
Ask a Legal Expert How MS Ruling Affects Open Source
By now we all know about Judge Kollar-Kotelly's decision in the Microsoft antitrust case. The effect of this ruling on Linux and Open Source use and future development is not yet clear. For those of you who have been wondering about this, we have a special interview guest: Attorney Lawrence E. (Larry) Rosen, Linux Journal's popular Geek Law columnist, who is surely one of the best-qualified people in the world to answer questions on this topic. (Usual Slashdot interview rules apply.)
Both Bill Gates and John Ashcroft talked about how the decision benefits consumers. But there's nothing really in the decision that changes the way MSFT does business. I can't call IBM and get a discount on a system without Windows installed, if I load XP onto a machine, MSFT can take it over and install software without my permission, and the APIs can be buried in MSDN, forcing OSS software developers to not only subscribe to MSDN, but also follow whatever licensing MSDN forces on users. For the most part, this is MSFT business as usual.
Where, in this decision, do the consumers benefit? If you could put yourself in CKK's shoes, what would you say?
The decision by the Justice Department to stop pursuing the antitrust case against Microsoft is a direct result of the outcome of the 2000 election.
If you don't like it, remember: tomorrow is Election Day.
GET OUT AND VOTE!
Open Source Software will continue on in the same way that it has always done. The thing that people may seem to lose track of is that OSS is a nirvana that Microsoft will never be able to "get". They have demonstrated this time and time again. Let them continue to buy politicians, courts, companies, etc. while they lose support one by one day by day from the very people people that comprise the very core of those components being bought out...
Besides, what better way to beat the monopoly than on the very playing field they have tried to keep us from getting near just to watch much less play. Let them waste more time and money in the courtroom and political arena. That's not where OSS shines anyway.
Chris
Don't buy it?
No, really. Think about it. If you don't buy it..they won't sell it. If many people won't buy it, producing the boards and processors, "protected" memory (in the sense that it's protected from you, the evil owner), and all the control to Microsoft that goes with it, just don't buy the damn things.
Pretty simple, isn't it? So simple it won't work, because people will still buy into the crap assuming that there will be some sort of a hack available for it in the near future. Which there might be, of course, but anyone who tries to come up with one will likely be sent to a mysterious military base in Cuba for "interrogation" (you know, the electric shock and broomstick kind?)
Who won?
Microsoft lost the case ages ago, so it became a question of what the penalty would be. Microsoft and the DOJ worked together and came up with a settlement proposal. Microsoft has been working hard to get this settlement approved. The settlement has penalties against Microsoft, but it is pretty much what they want it to be considering they lost.
When someone loses in court and they are happy with the penalty it is a relative "win" for them.
The big issue is that many people feel that the DOJ went too easy on Microsoft in the settlement. It only remedies a few of their abuses, and it has loopholes in it making major portions worthless.
For example the loopholes on releasing information - They are permitted to release it in an extremely limited, closed, and often useless manner. If there is any information they do not wish to release, all they have to do is link it in some way to security, DRM, or some other company's information and that exempts it from disclosure.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
It would seem easier to kill off an open source project as they are typically not (officially) associated with a company, nor have any serious resources other than perhaps the goodwill of the user community.
No, this makes open source projects harder to kill off, not easier. If there is no associated company or owner, who do you take legal action against? And there will always be people willing to continue the project if the main developers are "disuaded" from working on it.
Hey numbnutts - The possesive of Bush is Bush's not Bushes. I also would point out that this cases was going downhill long before Bush became President.
I can't call IBM and get a discount on a system without Windows installed,
But you can call walmart....
if I load XP onto a machine, MSFT can take it over and install software without my permission,
Horrible, those damn bastards might install patches to keep worms from spreading like Code Red and Nimda, because people who pirate their software typically aren't smart enough to secure it. Those bastards!
and the APIs can be buried in MSDN, forcing OSS software developers to not only subscribe to MSDN, but also follow whatever licensing MSDN forces on users.
http://msdn.microsoft.com . Where's the subscription? Need an SDK to write software to interoperate? It's there. Want to write plugins for their Messenger client? Documentation and SDK right there. It's organized, not hidden. Perhaps the OSS community can learn from organized documentation.
How many average consumers know what Linux or Mac OSX are? How many will know if MS is screwing them over? How many will have a choice?
Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
Nothing takes the fight out of a revolution like the tyrant becoming reasonable. IBM super computers, HP, SGI, Sun; as the big boys switch to Linux and cell phones, pda's and other things move to J2ME on a Linux kernel for all the right reasons the governments and other big users will have even more reason to switch away from the MS bullying.
Of course, bully's become spiteful in the end and drive the nails into their own coffins. My question is "can we sue the DOD to switch to OSS and Linux since it would seem necessary for both security and R&D and the MS EULA's don't allow their products to be loaded onto systems alongside OSS software". Seems to me it would save lots of money as well as making the DOD legal, secure and smarter. Given MS's either-or ELUA's they seem like the ones to be canned.
As for them losing support: that's how the free market works! If you don't like MS as a consumer, buy from other companies and promote them. For competitors, the solution is to build a better product and promote. Don't whine to the government, do something about it.
Okay sure, we'll buy from someone else then. Let's go on down to Best Buy and see what our choices are...hmmm, we have a Compaq with MS Windows on it, we have an E-Machines with MS Windows on it, we have a Sony with MS Windows on it...plenty of choices aren't there?
Except for Apple, there still is really is no easy way for the average consumer to "vote" against Microsoft, and there won't be until machines pre-configured with Linux, BSD, and other alternative OS's are on the shelves.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Or the contrary question. Is the mention of Linux actually helping Microsoft?
I mean, why exactly do you consider it damage? Isn't the supposed goal of this anti-trust lawsuit to bring about competition? If that competition does exist, then has not the goal been met?
If the goal has been met, then is there any further reason to proceed against Microsoft in a court of law? This is not damaging to Microsoft, it's actually beneficial. At least in terms of lawsuits, even if they may be losing potential marketshare/revenue.
Personally I'm of the belief that the computer world is so large that even a niche player has a substantial revenue potential. This idea that any one company needs to own it all is outdated, just like the auto industry and others. (Although you still see Honda versus Chevy arguments on the internet)
This is a really easy one to answer. If you look to history you can find many instances where this same problem has come up before. The short and sweet answer is: It never works.
The slightly longer answer is: Even monkeys avoid pain. Thus, as will be shown, the longer the committee is around, the less they will do to monitor Microsoft and the more they will adamantly state that they are complying with the court order. In this way they can misdirect any and all probes to find out exactly what they are doing.
Basically, the judge is incorrect. You cannot have someone monitor themselves because they will be saying they are doing what you've asked them to do when really they never do.
Ask yourself this: We recently had a string of murders committed by two people. Should we give them back their guns and set them free? We should. Let's just tell them not to shoot anyone else - ok? I'm sure they will do as we ask. After all - they've promised not to do it again and are willing to report in anytime we ask them to do so. You believe them? Don't you?
I didn't think so. So now, change the word "gun" to "unlimited funds" and "shoot anyone else" to "harm any other business [like make them go out of business or do anymore FUDs and such]" and you basically have what's going on with this case. Oh yes, I almost forgot, change "murders" to "business fallouts/forced foreclosures/buyouts/takeovers/whatever" and "two people" to "Microsoft". Why! It reads the same. Bless me!
Someone put a black hole in my pocket and now I'm broke.
So we know that MS does have a monopoly, and they did unlawfully act to preserve that monopoly, and based on those protective actions did reap a profit at the expense of their would be competitors. (These things are not up for debate they are 'Findings of Fact'.)
My question is, do they get to keep their unlawfully obtained profits? If yes, is it because they settled and did not have a judgement imposed upon them? If no, what penalties in the judgement serve to revoke valuable assets/profits from MS? (I must have missed that part.)
The really odd thing is that many /. posters assume that MS won and that that is bad for computers in general.
/. opinion seemed that MS should be forced out of business period and that anything less is a loss for GNU/Sun/Netscape, etc.
Microsoft did not win. Netscape, Sun, etc. did not win. The US government did not win.
Everyone lost money and, more importantly, time.
One main angst point is that MS "should not be free to enter the consumer electronics business" and that we all have "right" to have "open source, hackable consumer electronics".
I don't remember anyone pursuing anti-trust, 'you must open source or open the harware to hacking' the Nintendo Gamecube, Sega Dreamcast, or Sony Playstation 2.
Does freedom of speech include freedom to design your hardware/software anyway you want to?
Would it be perfectly legal for Microsoft to simply release a new OS version every year and obsolete the old software api's every other year to make competitor's software obsolete much much sooner. Thus forcing competitors to spend large sums of money to re-code their software for the new os version as well as support many more os platforms.
The general consensus
This is unreasonable. Microsoft could offshore it's assets to a country and have protection from US anti-trust regulations.
What I describe above is the kind of basic understanding that is lacking in the typical computer OS "customer". And it's this lack that has made Microsoft so strong, and forced the rest of us to have no choice but to deal with it because the ignorant majority use it.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.