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.)

Comments

How do consumers benefit? No, really!

[Enry]

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?

Re:Did Microsoft Win ?

[Alsee]

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.

-

Who is watching the watchers?

[Audacious]

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!