Slashdot Mirror
How To Hijack an EU Open Source Strategy Paper
Glyn Moody writes "Thanks to the indispensable Wikileaks, we have the opportunity to see how an organization close to Microsoft is attempting to re-write — and hijack — an important European Union open source strategy paper, currently being drawn up. Analyzing before and after versions visible in the document demonstrates how the Association for Competitive Technology, a lobbying group partially funded by Microsoft, is trying to widen the scope of open source to include 'mixed solutions blending open and proprietary code.'" And reader Elektroschock adds some detail on EU processes: "The European Commission lets ACT and CompTIA participate in all working groups of the European Open Source Strategy, which defines Europe's future open source approach. A blue editor questions the objectives: 'Regarding the "Europe Digital Independence" our [working] group thinks it is, in general, not an issue.' 'European digital independence' is a phrase coined by EU Commissioner V. Reding, that is what her European Software Strategy was supposed to be about. She didn't reveal that lobbyists or vendors with vested interests would write the strategy for the Commission."
I would too support MS if it were from my country. My question is: would EU do the same thing to protect their market if were another 3 or 4 big OS American companies disputing the same market?
This is like the EU deciding what oil individuals should use in all their cars.
The decision to use open source is not a governmental decision. If a government says to me "build a bridge from point A to point B," then I decide what piece of software is best for calculating the mass of the bridge. I can use an open source product, or a closed source product. But it would be absurd for my decision to be affected by what some guy in another country, who has no idea what software is, to make that decision for me.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
The fact you have choices for which OS to install on your computer proves Microsoft is, in fact, *not* a monopoly. PsyStar vs. Apple is actually a great example for WHY Microsoft is not a monopoly. If you buy a PC from PsyStar you can choose OS X or Windows. The lawsuit shines light on the scenario greedy scumbags have thrust upon the consumers against their will, a scenario that obfuscates real issues with half-truths or complete fallacies about software licenses, end user agreements, and monopolistic practices. Because you have the freedom to choose Dell, HP, Apple, PsyStar or any other PC vendor, means you have the freedom to buy a PC with an OS other than from Microsoft.
I've said this before and drawn a distinction between the real Comcast monopoly and the imaginary Microsoft monopoly. Comcast's monopoly is real because in *most* places you can either get Comcast broadband cable or none. Microsoft's monopoly is imaginary because there is no case where Microsoft's OS is your only choice. I think the biggest reason people think Microsoft is a monopoly is because there are no SUCCESSFUL competitors that are able to convince: a) the consumer, and thus b) the OEM. OEMs are never going to partner with OS vendors that are not profitable to themselves or competitive with other vendors products.
Forcing your imaginary problems into reality specifically to undermine a proven business model and force consumers to buy sub-par products under the guise of competition takes away the free in "free market." This is a move initiated by lobbyists to increase profits in the industry for which they lobby. Plain and simple.
PS) Speaking specifically about the "bundled" browser monopoly... I think the easiest way to say it would be this: Mozilla's free software business model is a failure compared to Microsoft's free software business model. The antitrust case is really showing me that these other companies are big babies crying about their lack of ability to succeed at giving something away for free.