Slashdot Mirror
RMS on Dealing with MS
SMR writes "This article features Richard Stallman's proposal on how should DOJ deal with Microsoft's monopoly practices, should the company lose the trial. "
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
We would all love it if we could use hardware any way we want. We would all love it if we could use software any way we want too. But, I disagree that Microsoft has a monopoly (read Neal Stephenson's essay posted awhile back). I also disagree with RMS' ideas for restriction. Its a free country--let MS do as they wish. I understand most of the problem is not getting hardware [driver] support. Thats not Microsoft's fault really. Hardware companies feel they have to keep trade secrets. If enough people demand hardware specs we will get them.
Little more ranting..
While I do not agree with Microsoft's practices, I believe they accomplished a great deal by the way they are. Do you really think an open (where anyone can work on it) operating system would have become as integrated as Windows in such a short amount of time? Unix started out open and has yet to reach integration and standards. Standards are good. If you don't have standard APIs there will be much reinvention of the wheel. Unix has multiple "standards". You got POSIX, X/OPEN, BSD (to name a very few). This is not good for portability. You say Unix is much better for portability, but I don't see how when some systems may have select(), some have poll() and some have neither. Its like you are thrown out on an island with some twigs and string and told to make a raft and sail home.
Anyways, our problem is hardware. Microsoft can go and integrate IE with Windows all it wants. Don't want IE? Don't use Windows (or switch to an older version). To some people that level of integration is well worth it. It allows Microsoft to link tech support web pages, etc. right into programs.
I believe we should get back to using Linux instead of worrying about how many people on the outside use it. I get the feeling many people using Linux today just want a free Windows.
I agree, I always seems to be staring at it looking for some hidden meaning, because without some sort of hidden meaning it really just stinks. It really does, I mean, look at the damn thing. Looks like it's got it's hair slicked back with lard and one of those goddamned John-Travolt-Scientological-secret-I-got-an-inner- peace-shit-eating grins on it's ugly mug... oh well, the penguin is just about as stupid too... I vote we use a dolphin!
Someone forward this to Billy boy and some of his minions. They could use a good laugh.
The paper was sensible and well-written. I think we need one more provision, dealing with exclusive OEM agreements, but on the whole, it's good thinking.
For the most part, I agree with you. RMS is ALWAYS looking for ways to help free software and open software and it seems like you just need to give him an excuse to start evangelizing about it...
:P
Anyway, of the points made, only the one about interfaces really makes sense to me. By publishing interfaces, Microsoft is prevented from doing one thing (at least) that is very illegal according to antitrust laws - leveraging one monopoly to create another one.
Now MS has a virtual monopoly on desktop OSes (for now) and by integrating IE with Windows, can extend that monopoly into web browsing software - by providing features that Netscape can't, since they don't have the ability to create the same degree of application-os cooperation. Some may argue that browser integration is only natural in the evolution of a modern operating system, but this practice could easily be extended to say Office Suites, Development Environments (some would say VC++ is already doing this) etc.. eventually forcing many more Windows software makers out of business - and thus allowing MS to gouge consumers, etc, since they are the only show in town.
Well, that went on a bit long.. sorry, but that's how I see the publication of interfaces as being important..
That may seem unfair, but it is a necessary result of a monopoly. In a monopoly situation the free market no longer functions for the benefit of both the consumer and the producer, but the benefit is skewed towards the producer at the expense of the consumer. Since the market no longer functions, a regulatory solution is required.
Furthermore, the regulation will normally only apply to one company, since if there is a monoploy then by definition one company is the problem.
Once the market was competitive again, the regulatory mechanism would be released.
Of course the interesting effect of Stallman's suggestions if applied across the software industry would be to skew the beenfit towards a gift economy. This would probably bias against the formation of future monopolies. I suspect there are possibilities which apply to the software industry which couldn't work in the economy-at-large.
It is the legal system that must consider someone innocent until proven guilty. Individuals are free to consider anyone guilty of anything. Though saying that in public may be illegal, merely holding the opinion is certainly not, at least in most countries, including the US, unless I'm mistaken.
"Any seller of operating systems software (not just MS) should be required to provide complete and acurate documentation for their APIs."
I don't think the legal distinction should be between OS and application software - the reason it might be legal to force MS to document Windows' API more thoroughly is that Windows has such a dominant market share.
e.g. - even though MS Office is not OS software, MS makes it difficult for others to compete by not documenting file formats adequately. Thus, only Office itself is completely compatible with the latest Office file formats.
The AT&T breakup and the restrictions placed on the resulting "baby bells" is probably a reasonable analogy -- with their network interfaces as analogs of the OS APIs that RMS wants documented. In the 1984 settlement, however, the baby bells were required to distribute documentation for interface changes six months in advance of their actually implementing the change, so that all parties had a fair chance to do whatever was necessary.
I would suggest that a similar requirement might be needed in this case, for the obvious reason.
You mean 1984!!!!
M$ is not on trial for being a monopoly, they are on trial for breaking anti-trust laws (unfair competition). Think of it this way, if Standard Oil was not broken up (they basically controlled the entire US oil industry and had great influence over the auto industry), what would stop them from charging whatever price they want for gas? You could say, well, then don't use their gas. Well, that means not using ANY gas since they controlled all of it. So you'd either walk to work or ride public transportation (of which their price would be higher as a result of high gas prices). Now associate that with Microsoft. Microsoft claims people use their software not because they don't have a choice (being the only preinstalled OS at the time), but because it's better. If it really is better, then it shouldn't hurt them at all to release all their API's, eh?
I too am skeptical of "think tank" pronouncements, since their "findings" are generally predetermined by their benefactors.
However, you are wrong to imply that the weasel words of EULAs imply that software companies are not liable for their products. They may be insulated against lawsuits, but their customers can still use the threat of lost future sales against them.
Software companies can and do respond with practices to "lock in" their customers by making migration to another product difficult if not impossible, but sufficiently annoyed customers will sometimes take the pain anyway.
It's an old axiom in the big iron world of long-term support contracts: if your existing customer deems it necessary to compare your product to the competition, then you've already lost the sale.
>> "... a company which holds a monopoly is a special case, subject to different rules."
> "And this is not a problem? It is a very bad thing to arbitrarily deprive a company of its rights because their market share is too high."
No. This is not a problem. Many laws apply differently depending on ones situation. Some examples: 1) Age discriminatory laws. Laws such as minimum drinking or driving ages place the young under different rules based solely on their age. I.E. they may be excellent drivers but still are not allowed to obtain a license to drive. 2) Laws regarding position. People in the military, for example, are under very different rules and regulations than the general populace. Or how about the president? I can't be impeached, but he can. 3) Trade secret laws. If your situation places you in a position of responsability to a business you are subject to penalties for revealing trade secrets, but if you aren't in such a postion and reveal a trade secret you can't be.
The point here is that when your situation changes, so can the rules you must follow. Obtaining monopoly power is just another such change.
> "But seriously, the rights of corporations are not new rights, and they do not literally lie with the corporation, since the corporation is not a physical entity. The rights of a corporation are only an extension of the rights of its members. Nothing more, nothing less."
Wrong. The rights of corporations derive from the laws which create them. These laws allow the corporation to be treated, to a limited extent, as a person in exchange for divorcing the owners of the corporation from certain liabilities for which they (the owners) would otherwise be responible. This is why, for example, the owners of a refinery would not individually be responsible for an industrial accident that kills someone, unless they also acted as officers of the company.
Having a competing browser is one thing. Bundling it with the operating system is another. On top of the bundling, MS turned the browser into an object viewer for file management. In effect, making it nearly impossible to remove it. Now Joe (MS) User has to get on the net (through MSN, probably) and download Navagator (if they can figure that out!) and install it (this is where you lose 90% of the microsoft users). After this is accomplished, Explorer asks you if you want to make Explorer your default viewer the next time it's loaded. This is all fair business practices?? I think not.
I remember a company named Stac. Stac made some BS software that "doubled" the size of your harddrive through on the fly file compression. DOS 5.0 comes along (or 6.0??) with Double Space bundled. The kicker here: Doublespace used a binary that was lifted directly from Stac's software. Stac used the law and MS had to re-write the double space binary. Stac is nowhere to be see.
Now I wonder how many times this has happened and gone by undetected. Strange that MS and Symantec had/have some sort of deal for the Defrag program but MS will knock another company out of business by bundling the same product in thier OS. What's next? They will upgrade Notepad.exe and Wordpad.exe to MSWord. Then the entire office suite will become an essential part of the OS! Where do we draw the line?
What I really want to see come from this is a legal definition of "Operating System." I prefer to go the route of "Kernel." Then they will have to define what services are acceptable in the Kernel. Of course, this definition must be dynamic to change with time. Like a Kernel Konstitution, Bill of Rights and all..
Maybe, if we're lucky, we'll start seeing different "Windows based Distribution" With different window managers and support utilities built around the same Kernel.. MS can do the Kernel and charge a royalty for it. Developers would have a choice of Kernels, Linux, Win32, BSD, etc.
...means that along with the freedom are accompanying duties and responsibilities. It doesn't mean you can do anything you feel like. Microsoft stretches this point (hence the lawsuit), but they are at least a bit more cognizant that it exists than you seem to be.
Why don't RedHat, SuSE, and Caldera talk to each other and start a UNIFIED Linux certification program? This is just a thought. This would clear many doubts about fragmentation of Linux and the "RedHat is THE Linux" attitude of RedHat (or at least a public perception of such.)
I agree 100% with RMS on this one. Everyone probably does. Such ruling would benefit everyone in the free software world.
The anti-trust law is actually very clear on this point (about the only thing it is clear on). In order to be in violation of anti-trust law, a company has to have done something that hurt *consumers*. Maybe by way of hurting a competitor, but if the end result of hurting a competitor can't be shown to have harmed consumers than it's not against anti-trust law.
The amendment granting the right to bear arms as part of an organized militia is the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution, not the first.
The first amendment covers freedom of speech, religion, etc.
this is the best, and most reasonable solution i have yet seen to settling the microsoft unfair competition problem. it really levels the playing field in a technically meaningful way.
makes a *lot* more sense that splitting microsoft up or open-sourcing a only a *portion* of their OS -> which is about as useless as not open-sourcing them at all.
johnrpenner@earthlink.net
I thoroughly agree with you that this is an outstanding discussion. I don't want to brown nose the moderators or CT, but the scoring is working and you folks are doing an outstanding job. Here you have a topic that involves *both* MS and RMS, and the level of discussion is top notch. This also may be because RMS wrote a very insightful and thought provoking article. Perhaps, ppl are stunned or are raising their level of thought to try to match RMS's.
I'll remain an AC for this posting.
what Mr. RMS suggests is obviously what needs to be done.
a th/
however it is naïve. MS was earlier ordered that they could not "tie" products together; they went ahead and tied whatever products together that they wanted. Do you really think they'd follow Stallman's suggestions if a court ordered them to?
And i'm just a little leery of forcing a software company to follow open-source principles if it doesn't want to. it sets scary precedents, even if in this case it needs to be done.
As i see it, the _only_ working soloution is to split up microsoft's OS and microsoft's software into seperate companies.
First off this doesn't create scary precedent-- this is the established way of dealing with monopolies.
Secondly, it forces MS to comply with mr. stallman's first suggestion. They would have to open up all API's completely, as this would be the only way of telling the application company how to use them. If they wanted to "integrate" one of the app company's apps into the OS, they'd have to do it by an open, documented API, so that if Netscape wanted to be part of the OS it could be too. And if they wanted to continue bundling the application company's software with the OS, that's fine. But they have to bundle Netscape, Realplayer, Quciktime, etc. as well, so long as that wouldn't take up excessive space on the win2k install CD. They couldn't give the application company any preferential treatment.
This hurts nobody. it helps everyone. the only way you could claim it hurts microsoft is by admitting that MS unfairly uses its monopoly.
The other way they could do this is resurrect apple's "opendoc" technology and integrate MSIE into the OS that way. Similar to the way apple planned to eventually integrate cyberdog/netscape/MSIE into the macos Finder years before win98 was developed. But of course opendoc was really wierd and badly developed, so i won't go there. (j/k of course..)
-mcc
die, dancing hampsters!! die!! die!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~mcclure111/hamsterde
why was this posted as anonymous coward? i put in my username/passwd, and it was listed as being from me on the "preview" page. Bug in /.?
never mind.
Now that he has said the True Answer he have been ruminating in silence for the past few weeks, there is no more room for discussion. His ideas are better than everyone else's. Anybody who disagrees with Him will be ranted to death in FSF's philosophy pages and will be forced to read Jon Katz forever. Amen.
:-)
But we're talking about what happens if it's found guilty.
Daniel
Good grief. I know nerds are supposed to be socially inept, but...
gnu (noo, nyoo), n., pl. gnus, (esp. collectively) gnu. any
of several African antelopes of the genus Connochaetes (sp?),
having an oxlike head, curved horns, and a long tail. Also
called wildebeest. [Kaffir nqu]
- The Random House College Dictionary
- Revised Edition (Deluxe), 1980
"Goat" indeed.
The items that RMS suggests target exactly the capabilities that enable Microsoft to abuse a monopolistic position of owning both the operating system and the major applications.
The only way other companies can compete is to have free access to these interfaces. This means that they should 1) be documented, and 2) be free of IP restrictions. This includes both software and hardware interfaces -- since both are used to block competition (eg, WinModems/Windows Printer).
For evidence of how this can be successfull, look at Samba. MS documenting the SMB protocol allowed for this project to take root. This has enabled alternate file servers to compete against MS.
Without this, MS would have excercised a monopoly position over the desktop market (Win98) to create dominance in low end file and print servers (WinNT), thus crushing the competition (Novell) by blocking them from the market with a proprietary interface (SMB). Fortunately, this didn't happen. But it happens in many of MS's dealings.
However, the IP limitation would probably be ineffective. They could transfer all patent IP to another company that spins off from MS. Also, many of MS's OS components are provided by other companies with patents on the IP. But restricting MS's IP might slow them down a little before they work around it.
MS would still be very profitable. Too many companies require the software, and MS still holds the copyrights. These restrictions don't keep MS from creating new inovations and holding them while others try to catch up (Samba still can't do everything a WinNT server can). However, it does remove MS's primary methodes for blocking competition.
RMS: bravo!
I remember a company named Stac. Stac made some BS software that "doubled" the size of your harddrive through on the fly file compression. DOS 5.0 comes along (or 6.0??) with Double Space bundled. The kicker here: Doublespace used a binary that was lifted directly from Stac's software. Stac used the law and MS had to re-write the double space binary. Stac is nowhere to be see.
You heard wrong. This is not what happened. Stac purchased a patent on file compression. Stac threatened Microsoft with it. Microsoft redid its compression specifically to avoid infringing upon the patent. Stac sued anyway. Stac managed to convince a jury of 12 random people off the street with no understanding of computer science (but plenty of symphathy for small companies taking on big ones) that MS's compression algorithm infringed upon their patent. As I understand it, they basically claimed their patent covered any use of a hash table and the jury bought it.
Microsoft thought they could win on appeal but decided to settle out of court with Stac because it was cheaper and/or more expedient. Stupidest thing they ever did. They should have fought it just for PR value, but MS never has understood PR (only marketing).
As part of the previous consent degree with the DOJ, Microsoft already agreed not to put such restrictions on OEMs. So Michael Dell can say that today if he wants, although MS can't ask, so he won't have the opportunity.
As an aside, I find it amazing the number of anti-Microsoft posters who don't have their facts straight. There are far too many mistakes in just the responses to this article alone for me to take the time to correct. Makes me wonder if all these rabid anti-MS folks would "think differently" if they bothered to investigate the truth instead of just accepting all the "well, I heard..."
The case isn't so much about browsers as it is about using a monopoly position in desktop operating systems to attempt creating a monopoly in web servers.
By controlling the desktop and merging it with web browers, MS can create "inovative" features that only work with their web server. This isn't so bad, except that they block competition by keeping all of the protocols and interfaces proprietary. No-one is allowed to compete, and MS takes over another market.
Thus, it is entirely reasonable for MS to be punished by taking away the very tools that enable this abuse -- proprietary interfaces.
These restrictions are also in the customers best interest. With all the interfaces being available by other companies, competing products can emerge. This allows for greater choices for the consumer as competing products will interface well with MS products. This would be an increadible boon to the entire industry -- in time, consumers would no longer be locked into a single vendor.
Yet, Microsoft would profit considerably from the endever. Consider Intel. For each new processor, they have to allow for clones (Intel is required to share the IP). This doesn't prevent Intel from being very profitable. In fact it helps as Intel is much stronger for the exercise. And the consumers benefit. If at any time Intel drops the ball, another vendor is ready to support the customer base. Prices actually decrease while performance and capabilities increase. The sub $1,000 computer wasn't Intel's idea.
Two things have come up lately. WinModems and Windows Printers. They use closed hardware interfaces that require complex software drivers.
Since MS holds a monopoly on desktop operating systems, such devices can become common place. Hardware vendors will produce products for the platform that sells the most units for the best price.
What's to keep MS from extending the certification to require closed interfaces? Nothing really, unless the DOJ does something. If you want to compete with MS OS's, you'll need hardware support. But you can't since MS hardware certification would prevent it.
- Free software should exist
- All software should be free
- The government should penalize Microsoft
I can follow RMS to points 1 and 2, but not to 3. I know RMS believes in and advocates other things beyond free software, but I can't understand why he presents his views on antitrust as if they had to do with free software.The judge ordered ms and the doj to settle out of court with no law intervention. MS wouldn't give in and the doj wouldn't agree to settle and therfor the case is dead. Judge Jackson will not not get involved at all. ITs lost. Lets just embrace NT and live with it because their is no stoping it now. What a shame.
Posting as a member of Clan AC for now ()since I'm too lazxy to look up my password)
I disagree with RMS on this one because I'm a Libertarian.
That said, given that government WILL interfere in a freemarket, they might as well interfere this way. It's no worse than other (ab)uses of government force.
As for RMS himself, I've found his positione to be passionate, almost fanatic, but ALWAYS backed by solid reasoning.
I don't have to agree with the man to respect him and his ideals greatly.
The first amendment grants us the right to bear firearms. If you kill people with guns, the government can take those rights away from that particular individual.
According to my source, Out of Many, A History of the American People, Volume One published by Prentice Hall, the second amendment reads:
The Amendment states that people are allowed to keep and bear arms, whether they be swords or firearms, for the purpose of a militia. The way my teachers have presented the Amendment seems as if the founding fathers were saying "So that the Nation can have a national guard formed of the people, the people have the right to own weapons so that they can defend the country."
The analogy of being able to own firearms and be restricted if those firearms are used incorrectly and inappriopriately does not make any sense in the situation of the Anti-Trust suit aginst Microsoft.
I accept that you were trying to say the Government can limit an entity's rights if it infringes upon the rights of another. If Microsoft is proven to have infringed upon the pursuits of life, liberty, property, and other rights guaranteed by the United States government, then it is within their power -- and is their duty, in my opinion -- to restrict the powers of Microsoft.
But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
--
Nick Shane
nshane@mindless.com
I do think that number 3 is *very* important and shows that
RMS has a very clear view or what will come if only 1 and
2 were enforced:
That would still make it possible for Micorsoft to encourage hardware
vendors to develop proprietary hardware that only interfaces with
windows through special software that is supplied with the
hardware.
This is happening right now and is a big disadvantage to
other OS:es, not just open ones like Linux/*BSD but even
other commercial competitors like BeOS and Solaris that
wouldn't even be able to write the damn drivers themselves
if the specifications aren't released.
It would even make it possible for Microsoft to totally block other
operating systems access to new hardware if the hardware
vendor is willing to cut a certain deal. And with MS market
share and piles of money I bet a lot of vendors would do it...
In fact, MS can allready do this and I can only guess that
they haven't done it allready simply because they don't
feel they have to (after all, it's very controversial and takes
some effort) and that they don't want to give more fuel to
the trial.
However, if their other methods for "embrace and extend"
were taken away and other OS:es were eating their market
share they would most certainly use this advantage...
/Tord (who doesn't have his password handy)
Hmm, I believe that the consumers seem to be being overlooked in this argument. I work in the field of Market Data and far from being ignorant business heads who lap up Micros~1 propaganda they seem very sceptical. Some of them still run NT 3.51 as it is more stable and very few of them trust the MS line on y2k compliancy (ie. no one wants the hassle of Corruption Pack 4 etc..)-trusting instead their own y2k testing teams.
Interestingly Reuters last year ported their *bulletproof* trading backend to NT from Solaris and not a single company has bought it to date. I suppose the point of this is to say that you can say and think what you like but it's up to the consumer at the end of the day. And I would like to think that they'll make the right choice.
I also think Gnu looks very dumb, but you got a point there.
what if someone model a Gnu and render it with some fur renderer and stuff? I think Gnu can be easily commercialized.
PS. i don't know about Picasso, i think he's be very angry if he knows you said that. Gnu has absolutely NO line quality of Picasso's. or, maybe, Gnu has not line quality.
1.The US is not as free as you thought. there is no big wide open west anymore. Keep dreaming.
The Truth is, US is not even a Capiltalist country.
2. MS has a Monopoly, by definition. If you don't believe me, ask any economist.
3. Monopoly is a social problem. Monopoly is a free market failure, which distribute resource(wealth) in a uneven fashion. Of course if you work for MS, you'd say you have the freedom to conduct a monopoly bussiness. But the problem is, this type of unfair distribution of money usually makes a society unstable. (see Economist's article about MS's monopoly.)
I don't think MS has accomplished anything rather then hopping on the right train at the right time.
I never agree with Stallman's socialist points, but he has a point here. However, I think if we ask MS to open up thier interface and file spec, so should vendors.
>If you are actually interested, look into
>Libertarianism. If your point is that I am a
>member of the lunatic fringe, then you are free
>to think that.
YOU ARE!
Grow up get out of collage work in the world for a while with you CS degree and feel the undue influence corporations can have over individuals. I'm not being macivelien here but trying to tell you how easily crushed individual people can be.
Libritarinism is ok for it's principals but to embrace it with out a feeling of humanitarism is to be a member of the lunatic fringe.
Farther on the lunatic fringe are libritarins who support Microsoft! How absurd to support a company's intellectual property when it feels no respect for yours!
My favorite quote of your Ann Rand:
"Pollution is good, it shows man's conquest of nature, I want to see more of it!"
I agree with all three parts, except the enforcement section of part 1. Lets face it, Microsoft will ignore the requirement to correct its documentation and stall the resulting legal battles indefinitely in court...
I suggest Microsoft be required to publish their specifications on a web page, or in a book, or whatever. And, everytime someone finds a mistake, Microsoft should be fined some small ($1000) amount. Which would be split evenly between the government (who's collecting the money) and WHOEVER FOUND THE ERROR. After some short but reasonable period of time, perhaps a week or two, if the error was not corrected, Microsoft could then be fined again.
In a matter of weeks, Microsoft's documentation would either be perfect, or Microsoft would have effectively funded the WINE project...
Haven't you figured it out yet? Socialists like RMS, et al who suck off the teat of the taxpayers money would LOVE to see everything government regulated.
More government regulation, bigger government, more money for those who make money off the government.
There no such thing as unfair business practices, although the government (lawyers) would love you to think so. More money for them.
Uh, um, where exactly in the Constitution does it say that businesses have to be "fair" and "level the playing field"?
I must of missed that line.
Could you stop using the term "M$"? It makes you sound like a 14 year old idiot.
Microsoft is not on trial for having a monopoly.
Microsoft is on trial for illegally using its monopoly to leverage a monopoly in another area. (For example, using a monopoly on desktop operating systems to gain a monopoly in web browsers.) That is what is meant by "unfair competition".
Apple or Be would suffer the same fate if they did the same thing. At least, one would hope they would...
I guess RMS suggestions are the best I've ever
heard regarding Microsoft.
They will not really hurt Microsoft in any way
except to cripple them in their ability to
destroy opponents with unfair practices. If
Microsoft is really an "innovative" Company as
claimed by itself, it will easily hold a big
marketshare because MS will able to do its
implementation before the competition.
Furthermore, it will not only enable free
software to compete but closed-source software
as well.
"The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
Microsoft doesn't have any rights -- it's a company. Its employees, and shareholders have rights, but there is nothing in the law that protects their investment and work from being lost when company breaks the law. Since the harm was done, a remedy for it should be done as well.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
You've already admitted you don't think anti-trust laws apply in this case. I can't help but thinking that doesn't color your arguments. Fine are ridiculous. Clearly no fine would be sufficient to curb Microsoft. It would take a fine nearing $10 billion just to deplete their cash reserves, but more money keeps flowing in every day! Injunctions are likely to be useless. The ban on forcing computer makers to pay for Windows regardless of whether they install it or not (found in the original Microsoft consent decreee) is functionally equivalent to an injunction, but accomplished nothing. You are basically arguing that Microsoft should get a slap on the wrist and be sent on its way. I'd recommend arguing from first principles: namely, stick with your argument that anti-trust laws are bogus.
In response to point 1:
As I understand it, the US government can under anti-trust law declare a service to be "essential" and thus regulate its pricing and implementation. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure exactly how this would work, but if that's the case, they should be able to specify that all APIs must be open and documented.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
The gnu drawing actually reminds me of some of Picasso's later pen-and-ink drawings.
Plus it looks like RMS.
I'd prefer it to any slick, sterile, high-tech logo. Especially those tacky, overGIMPified, 3-d rendered chrome logos which are endemic to most Linux projects. Those are the worst!
The spectrum of M$ competition ranges from Linux/GNU and BeOS to IBM, AOL and Apple, all employing different business practices. A level playing field is not possible without limiting all competitors to the lowest (least restrictive/competitive) common denominator. We're talking the economic version of Harrison Bergeron here - bad idea.
For Stallman's suggestions to work, and be morally right rather than anti-M$, they would have to be applied to the software industry as a whole. No way in hell will that ever work.
Regulations and restrictions must be industry-wide, not just levied against the most successful of contenders.
If MS, which is a monopoly, I remind you, loses its case, then would you admit that the absence of a level playing field can be attributed (to a fair degree) on MS's practices? We're not talking about "success" here; if this is "success", then Charles Keating and Willie Sutton were successes as well, and to have them do time as convicted felons was an unfair punishment. A solution or remedy that is MS-specific is just as valid as an industry-wide remedy, provided it's judged to be a fair one. I'd say an MS-specific solution would be better and less of a hassle to us all, but YMMV.
They are not above the law by virtue of being a corporation, "successful" or otherwise. And a law that protects us from the excesses of a Microsoft (or anyone else) is valid, no matter what the anti-government folks say; MS have done their bit to limit freedom as well as competition.
--
--
=8^
The focus of the trial is to determine whether Microsoft's actions have hurt consumers.
On just that merit I'm not sure if this case is sound.
Is it just consumers, or are competitors (past, present, and future) included in the equation as well? If MS can be proven to have taken deliberate steps to use it's legally-adjudicated monopoly (to use Howard Cosell's pet phrase) to screw its competitors, or to screw the possibility of competition in general, then they're as guilty as if they directly screwed consumers one by one.
IANAL, of course, so I may have gotten this all wrong.
All the politics now surrounding this case have mad the whole point totally obscure.
What politics? /. politics? Bill Neukom? Bruce Francis? Politics of some sort surrounds every square inch of life itself. Fortunately, in this particular case, there is a courtroom, a judge, lawyers, and quite a few journalists involved. Stick to that, and you'll do OK.
--
--
=8^
...almost every good idea I've heard from engineers and programmers...
(Regarding the Microsoft problem, that is.)
Remember that what's inside of you doesn't matter because nobody can see it.
No way that's gonna happen. Why is RMS wasting his time on hypothetical situations? ;-)
What RMS does is distill almost every good idea I've heard from engineers and programmers into a single page. This is a great article; read it.
Remember that what's inside of you doesn't matter because nobody can see it.
Come to think of it, this is also the first reasonable proposal for dealing with M$ that I've seen. Others do something, but don't solve any problems. This would solve the problem, and to boot I can accually belive it is reasonable.
I'm still shocked that I agree with RMS, normally I respect him as a programer and keep his views seperate.
Proposal 1 (require MS to open all APIs)
h tml
has already been rejected by
capatalist pundits as being more of an
advantage to Microsoft's competitors rather
than helping consumers.
I refer you to this article (parts of which
may annoy you) for the capitalresearch.org perspective on DOJ vs. MS in respect to OSS:
http://www.capitalresearch.org/trends/ot-0499a.
RMS proposals 2 and 3 are good -- I especially like
3 (requiring hardware vendors to release specs to
get the MS seal of approval). Proposal 3
demonstrates how MS could apply pressure to
help consumers rather than just using pressure
to boost it's own market share.
Anti-trust legislation hinges on how company X
affects *consumers* -- if the gov't deems that
company X is a monopoly but does not hinder or
harm consumers than it can go on -- business as
usual. Competitors have to fend for themselves
and can only get help from Uncle Sam if they
can prove that the monopoly us hurting consumers.
...so the only way to "convict" Microsoft is
to prove that they have been hurting consumers,
which I believe is true and can be proven. On the
other hand, proving that Microsoft crushes all
competitors is gray area between capitalism,
darwanism, and government control.
Yeah, I agree. I usually tend toward Linus-like pragmatism and view RMS as a blue-sky idealist, but of all the proposed remedies that I've read, RMS' make the most sense.
TedC
Any seller of operating systems software (not just MS) should be required to provide complete and acurate documentation for their APIs. Withholding this information puts such a company in a position to exercise undue control over their customers (and the market), and has in this particular case allowed Bill Gates to become the richest man in the world by selling substandard products.
TedC
I haven't written a Windows program for over three years, but last time I did the API documentation sucked. This was with VC++ 1.5, and a lot of the prototypes in the online "help" didn't even match the header files. Some of the stuff is documented, some of it isn't, and some of it's documented, but just plain wrong. The only real way to be an effective Windows programmer is to subscribe to the non-MS windows programming mags and keep up on what's been discovered by other programmers.
Of course things may have improved since 1995, but I doubt it.
TedC
A key idea in capitalist thinking is that free competition helps consumers. A monopoly is allowed to exist only if it has not harmed consumers (as you say). One form of harm is the use of monopoly power to prevent competition and thus restrict consumer choice. If the monopoly exists solely BECAUSE of overwhelming consumer choice, it is allowed.
Thus, if MS is an illegal monopoly, helping competition restores consumer choice, and remediates the problem.
The rights forfeit by a particular crime should be comensurate with the nature of the crime.
Use a boat to smuggle drugs, you loose the boat. Commit armed robbery, loose the right to own a gun, Use unpublished 'insider' API's to extend your OS monopoly into other software, loose your unpublished APIs. There's nothing unusual there. It's just another case of removing the means to commit the crime again.
It's a matter of context. There are many examples of that in law, and all are based on the liklihood of causing harm to others. A few examples, you can yell fire in the middle of an empty field, but not in a movie theater. You can fire a gun at the firing range, but not the bus station. You can even drive drunk on your own property.
To further illustrate the point, Apple CAN'T do some of the things MS has done specifically because they don't have enough market share. For example, they can't afford to charge higher prices to VARs who also sell Wintel. MS can and DOES do that. The difference: A VAR can afford to write off 3% of it's customers in order to undersell the competition in 90% of it's market. On the other hand, no VAR can or will write off 90% of the market in order to be more competitive in 3% of the market.
Actually, the entire DOJ vs. MS case revolves around that metric. What the metric boils down to is that if MS is using it's monopoly to stop competition, it is in violation of the law. If it does nothing to prevent competition, then it is a monopoly by consumer choice.
For example, if VARs only offer Windows because their customers only want windows it's legal. If VARs only offer Windows because MS penalizes them for offering a choice, it's illegal. You will notice that before the DOJ took MS to court, there were two distinct groups of computer VARs out there, those who offered only Windows, and those who offered other OSes and not Windows. That's because if a VAR offers other OSes, MS won't give them a rebate on Windows licensing and thus, they can't offer a Windows system at a compeditive price vs a VAR that DOES get a rebate from MS.
Whatever happened to the innocent until proven guilty rule? Does it somehow not apply here just because we are talking about Microsoft? If it is found guilty, then yes, until such time the corporation did not do anything wrong. So it did not forfeit any rights, as long as it remains innocent.
"Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
Abusing it is not.
Microsoft is being charged with abuse of a monopoly. The primary case is being built on the Navigator/Internet Explorer issue because that is the most obvious.
Microsoft is in a monopoly position. Netscape came to the field and was making roughly eighty percent of their money off Netscape Navigator. Microsoft, by the internal e-mail statements of head operational officers, wanted to destroy Netscape. Their method for doing so was to dump Internet Explorer on the public and choke Netscape's browser revenues. This is illegal. It's called product dumping and most of the U.S. was furious when Japan did that to us. It's no different here except the dumper is the poster boy for American Capitalism.
--
Ben Kosse
Remember Ed Curry!
The only way to define ANYTHING as a monopoly is through market share coupled with market pressure the company can exert. Microsoft has a 90-percent marketshare of the desktop systems (where the case is being tried). They have enormous capability to basically draft new standards for the market and have them become de facto standards
So what? If I were to invent an immortality pill and a transporter, would I lose my rights? I could live 140 years, I could be on 5 continents nearly simultaneously, and you couldn't keep me in jail.
And this is a problem for everyone else. There is now, no way to punish you for violation of others rights.
But seriously, the rights of corporations are not new rights, and they do not literally lie with the corporation, since the corporation is not a physical entity. The rights of a corporation are only an extension of the rights of its members. Nothing more, nothing less.
Wrong again, bucko. The rights of a corporation have to be less than the rights of a citizen. This is because, in the USofA (where Microsoft is incorporated), the rights of the individuals are not supposed to be revolked merely at the whim of the majority.
Not the legal status of a person. Look at marriage. A marriage has many of the characteristics of a corporation: special tax laws, joint property, the ability to be on two continents at once, etc. Does this mean that a marriage is a "ficticious entity" that cannot own property or have free speech rights? If a couple is arrested for something, does the court have an unlimited right to fine them, since their property is owned by a "ficticious entity?" The issue is exactly the same. The same arguments can be made about churches, schools, governments, social clubs, universities, unions, etc. Groups get their right from the rights of the individuals who make up that group.
Actually, that is blatantly false. The closest thing marriage is to any business enterprise is that of a partnership. The property is owned by each member of the marriage whereas in a corporation members (i.e. stockholders) are generally immune from having their personal assets seized in the event of bankrupcy. Contrast this to a partnership or marriage where the members can be directly sued and fined by the courts and forced to pay out of their own pocket. The remainder of your rant about marriage being like a corporation is equally off-base.
The only other thing you came remotely close to was that governments get their rights by what the citizens give them. This is always true, but sometimes the "giving" involves force.
--
Ben Kosse
Remember Ed Curry!
The purpose of Anti-Trust Law is to help competitors with the belief that a thriving competition will help consumers.
--
Ben Kosse
Remember Ed Curry!
Yes, it must be shown the consumer was harmed. HOWEVER, all remedies go to helping competitors under the assumption that more competitors is better for the consumer.
--
Ben Kosse
Remember Ed Curry!
So 90% market share is a monopoly? What about in a very small industry, that cannot support more than a couple of companies? Or in a brand new market that has as yet only one producer? Or in the case of a company whose competition is grossly incompetent? None of these standards can be written into law in a reasonable way. That is my point: basing law on the concept of "monopoly" is extremely arbitrary and makes the system ripe for abuse.
Next time you quote me, please include everything I say which is relevant to the discussion. I said:
The only way to define ANYTHING as a monopoly is through market share coupled with market pressure the company can exert. Microsoft has a 90-percent marketshare of the desktop systems (where the case is being tried). They have enormous capability to basically draft new standards for the market and have them become de facto standards
You left out the bold part. Yes, the law is inexact. It should be trivial to prove that a company is grossly incompetent. In fact, all Microsoft has to do is show how it is truely innovating. It isn't. It buys out companies and integrates, but does not innovate.
On rights not being revoked by the majority
uh? The rights of corporations are? I certainly don't think so.
And you're correct. The problem is Microsoft blatantly violated several sections of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. They are being punished for violation of the law.
As for the marriage example, you are right that limited liability makes the marriage different from a corporation. But I don't think that this is the least bit relevant to the question of whether it has rights.
You brought up a stupid analogy and I called you on it. What's the problem?
The argument I have heard (yours may be different) is that since corporations are not persons, they have no rights.
No, they have whatever rights the government chooses to give them since they are only entities in the eyes of the governing. A corporation isn't a tangible "thing" or self-conscious entity. It is a legal twist. That is all.
This applies equally to marriages.
It applies to marriages but not to the participants of a marriage. There is a difference. Just because you incorporate your business doesn't mean you give up your rights as a person. You, in fact, gain several legal protections.
And if you don't believe that married couple have joint property, then why is there always a lengthy procedure during a divorce to decide who-gets-what? If the property was seperate, they could go their seperate ways immediately.
I didn't say that. I said the "marriage" doesn't own any property. The two people who partake in marriage still own the property under a specific legal ownership description. There is a fundamental difference that should be clear from the above wording.
I don't remember for sure if this is the argument you made. If you were making a different argument, please correct me. But the essential feature of a corporation in terms of rights--that it is a ficticious entity comprised of more than one individual--applies equally to both marriages and corporations. I don't see what the connection is between limited liability and the lack of rights of corporations.
No, again, it doesn't. You are confusing the legal entity of a corporation with the rights of the two people who have made a legal contract called marriage.
The people in a marriage gain some specific rights in return for the contract they have undertaken. If they break the contract, i.e. by annual or divorce, they lose those rights. Very simple. Marriage does not create a legal entity. It allows Mary to speak on behalf of John in some specific circumstances, but the union MaryAndJohn does not exist. MaryAndJohn is not a specific legal entity. Mary is a legal entity. John is a legal entity. Mary and John together gain some benefits from the government.
Contrast this to corporations where Ybox Corp is a legal entity. Ybox Corp can be sued as an entity (Mary and John can be sued together, but you cannot sue the entity MaryAndJohn). Ybox Corp shields its owners from damage (MaryAndJohn provides no protection to either member). Ybox Corp is not a natural entity (Mary and John both exist independent of whether or not the government gives them a slip of paper saying they're married), nor is it made up of natural entities (it is owned by them, but that is a different issue). Ybox Corp is a governmental construct.
--
Ben Kosse
Remember Ed Curry!
Unless you have some credentials to back that rather revisionist history up, please cease distributing it.
The other annoyance you forgot to mention was the lawsuit Microsoft placed on Stac for using undocumented features reverse engineered from doublespace. Woops, so much for the law protecting you from reverse engineering for compatibility.
--
Ben Kosse
Remember Ed Curry!
For cross-licencing. I believe IBM uses their patents that way. Whenever some other company accuse IBM for violating one of their patents, IBM point out 50 IBM patents the other company is violating, and suggest a cross-license.
HAhaha! :) Cleaning the barn :)
Seriously tho, I dont think there's any subliminal messages or anything in the GNU logo. I like it really, it has its own personality and charm.
I have to say that point 1 a VERY good one. I feel points 2 and 3 are in there to artificially help the free software movement and NOT to help solve the Microsoft dilemma.
What would forcing Microsoft to cross licence ALL of there patents DO beside's make Microsoft utterly useless.. I mean, something needs to be done, but hell, removing their legs AND arms is a little to far.. There is a difference between solving the problem that exists, and disolving Microsoft..
And forcing Microsoft to not allow certification of their OS on a machine? Again, this would only force hardware makers to show their hands, NOT solve the Microsoft problem..
RMS really needs to think about what he writes, and defend them as he writes..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Now WAIT a minute.. Forcing a company to serve as a public service is NOT very Capitolist. To make Microsoft serve as the catalyst to IP reform is NOT the way to go.. Open Source is looking arrogant for even suggesting this..
I suppose the same would apply to Red Hat being given Hard specs to allow the Linux Kernel to function on new hardware as well?
Oh wait, this is about solving MICROSOFT, isn't it?
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Well, I can agree with youin part.. EVERYTHING except your reponse to point 1. Microsoft runs on over 85% of computers. Many comapnies, and all of our general interests, are all on the shoulders of these systems. It'd be like if suddenly water was the sole property of one company (Ok, THAT'S extreme). It'd be in the general good to force them to open it up..
I DO agree that it's simply NOT RIGHT to force them to do it.. But what's right and what's for the general good are two different things..
People who own property shouldn't be forced to turn it over to the government, yet, eminent (sp?) domain is there for a reason.. The same applies to IP in my mind..
But now we're on to the realm of personal opinion..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
So you support the ability for the federal government to dissolve companies? That's what these would do.. Everything Microsoft owns would be out in the open.
'Off with their Head'!!
-- RMS on Microsoft..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
A breakup is one thing.. What RMS is suggesting is quite a bit more..
Imagine if what he's suggesting happen to Microsoft happened to AT&T. EVERYTHING that At&t ever did would be open for anyone who wanted to pay the fee to licence it. Oh, and anyone who wanted to do things WITH what was left of the company would also have to publish everything about their equipment.. What's he's suggesting is MUCH more then what happened to AT&T..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Free Software DOES in a off kinda way help consumers, but the Anti-trust laws are aimed at helping COMPEITION, not really what's best for the consumer..
And anything that targets needing to give away IP data, as in the hardware makers, would need to apply to everyone.. NOT just Microsoft..
And the problem with hardware vendors and IP isn't related to the Microsoft trial..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
The POINT of the laws, and the laws themselves are two different things.. The laws, as implemented, give no power the help the customer, merely to help the competition..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
There's several problems here.. MS would be required to licence the OS's themselves, as they are patented. Anyone could licence and clone to their hearts content, hence, Microsoft is robbed of it's best money maker. There are to many holes in what's suggested..
Not only that, but it would start to get at hardware manufacturers as well..
Looks like when given the chance, we all becouse Microsoft.. We now want to do EXACTLY what they force others to do. This is like Raping a rapist, then cutting off his dick. It may seem right, but it's hardly ethical. Shall we become what we fear the most?
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
I think we should replace the GNU & Tux both with Jack. http://ww4.choice.net/~ra/shark_logo.jpg
I forget where I found the shark, I didn't draw it myself.
-Rev. Randy
- Kate
"DNA is life. The rest is just translation."
I hate to say "What he said" but in this case I have to say "What he said"! A nicely reasoned and presented argument from RMS. A contribution from somebody who sounds a hell of a lot more mature than Perens or Raymond. (Sorry, but the recent flamefest really dropped my opinion there.)
:-)
My god, what does it mean? I may have to revise my opinion of RMS! Damn!
The revolution will NOT be televised.
But what is the market level if there's no one else in the market? It's what they say it is.
I think the correction that needed to be done has already occurred because the DOJ did press the case. OEMs and other business partners got a little slack because MS had to play nice, Linux took off, and now we're seeing $500 PCs pre-loaded with a non-MS OS for the first time in many years. But that doesn't excuse them. They ARE a monopoly, and they DO use that power in a way that reduces choice and increases the expense for consumers. Remember a lot of that expense is not just at the point-of-sale, it comes through "required" upgrades and poorer performance from the system.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
Hey, that was quite nice. First I said "what the heck is he talking about?" and then I got to the part about Win 3.1. How about if Bill G. said something like "OS/2 is a great operating system" and stated it would be the successor to Win 3, would that be nasty enough to convince you? :-)
Lotus and WordPerfect worked on OS/2 versions of their stuff, MS did Win3, and then said "Whoops! No more OS/2 after all!" BANG. That was the end of Lotus 1-2-3 and WordPerfect. It took so long to re-groove for Windows MS Word and Excel had already taken the field. That was enough for me.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
(On the subject of corporations having rights or not: Ever seen a corporation literally imprisoned? Ever meet someone 140 years old who existed on 5 continents simultaneously? My point is that corporations and people are not the same. A five year old knows this. There may be rights appropropriate to corporations, just as there may be rights appropriate to sheep. But there is no reasonable basis for granting the legal status of a person to a fictitious entity ipso facto.)
What do you mean by 'only an extension'? People do not forfeit their individual rights as members of a corporation. (Well, in the negative sense, as employees, but that's another thread.) They may manage a corporation which is bound by additional laws, but that's not really the same as saying that they are bound by those as individuals. Different laws apply to group action than to individual action, nothing radical about that.
Does this mean that a marriage is a "ficticious entity" that cannot own property or have free speech rights?
Yes. Marriages don't have free speech rights, people do. You could make the case that a 'marriage' does not have the full rights of an individual, while the individuals within it do. Of course, in practice the difference is so slight as to be unneccessary. Two people in mariage can have joint ownership of property, meanwhile, but there is no limited liability to give significance to the fictitious entity.
The same arguments can be made about churches, schools, governments, social clubs, universities, unions, etc.
Yes again. These entities are subject to laws which do not apply to individuals.
Not complicated.
Yes Microsoft is a monopoly. But it isn't illegal to be a monopoly. It is illegal to use monopolistic powers to hurt consumers.
Well, it's also illegal to use a monopoly in one area to gain a monopoly in another. Then the question becomes, did MS use an OS monopoly to attempt the monopolisation of the browser market? And if so, are they really two separate markets, or two facets of the same market?
The focus of the trial is to determine whether Microsoft's actions have hurt consumers.
On just that merit I'm not sure if this case is sound.
The focus of the trial is to determine if MS used one monopoly to gain another.
All the politics now surrounding this case have made the whole point totally obscure.
Damn straight. This is not a real trial of Microsoft the marauding monopoly. It's a trial of corporate character. The offence should focus on the core issues; and Microsoft should focus on the core defence.
As it is, though, the prosecution is giving MS enough rope to hang itself, character-wise. MS is no longer the unsullied uber-corp in the eyes of the public. So if nothing else positive comes of this, at least people will know what kind of corporation is running the desktop software industry.
You can't compare Microsoft with Unix. You might compare Microsoft with Sun or with HP but if all Unix boxes were Sun boxes your argument goes out the window (no pun intended). Windows 95 & NT have different API's just like different Unix's might.
My gripe is that Microsoft have engineered an environment where everything is supposed to be the same. Every desktop looks alike and every application looks/works alike and innovation in design can't happen any more. Microsoft is on nearly every business desktop (can you say "single point of failure"?) and the whole IT world is in danger of becoming just one huge pile of dead clones. Reminds me of the book/film 1994.
Regards
Why is it that hard to accept the notion of a free market? Let Microsoft fight it out in its terms, and we'll fight on our own. Linux is doing excellently (can you honestly imagine all the mainstream press even a year ago? Did you ever imagine Microsoft admitting Linux poses a threat to them?) and it's poised to capture much larger mindshare and marketshare.
Can't we just stop wasting time rebuilding Microsoft or its products, and focus instead on making better (and more user-friendly) software? Can't we stop wasting electrons arguing about GNU/Linux vs. Linux vs. Microsoft vs. Red Hat vs. whatever?
Have a great weekend!
E
http://eugeneciurana.com | http://ciurana.eu
I never said anything about supporting Microsoft. All I ever said, in this and other postings, is that we waste too much time complaining and rearranging Microsoft's future. Use that energy for something constructive.
As for coding for Windows or not, Linux is living proof that we don't have to do that.
For the record, most of my customers were Microsoft to the bone. I managed to steer them toward Java/Solaris, Java/Linux, Java/Windows (clients) or some permutation of these successfully. It all depended on a simple truism:
We proved that the technology, business model, users' level of service expectation, and support infrastructure were the same or better than Microsoft's or legacy (mainframe) solutions.
As for Microsoft's goal, I think it's pretty clear: Make money no matter what. If embracing Linux makes them money, they will. That's why I think it's so important that we stop wasting time complaining about the evil empire and create useful, fun products for Linux. We can then raise the bar higher and make it harder for them to compete. I think the current state of the Internet server market is a good yard stick: Linux-based systems outperform Microsoft's in every way. These Linux solutions exist thanks to people who aimed at doing the right thing the right way, not at destroying a successful company.
E
http://eugeneciurana.com | http://ciurana.eu
At least the Baby Gnu (the one used as /. icon) is good and cute.
... as I haven't seen Microsoft abusing patents yet.
Here is my favorite example of a few patents by Microsoft that may be stretching the limits of being resonable IP. Abuse? Its scares the hell out of me what they are doing.
I see no reason why anyone has a right to know anything about Microsoft's products. The fact that Windows is popular does not make it public domain software, and I see no moral obligation on their part to document or not document any part of it.
The moral obligation is not that they document it, rather it is that they allow for competition. The definition of a monopoly is: exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action (from http://www.m-w.com). I think that MS has all three. To restrict the monopolists power, some or all of those need to be checked. MS supplies the API and that wouldn't change. MS still has hardware vendors wrapped around their little finger (remeber win9x refund day and the per box licensing fee that they used to charge). MS legally has the right to refuse knowledge of their API's. What are Microsoft's stances: They reserve the right to "innovate" (create and impliment new APIs/"standards"). They want to be able to have licensing agreements (An exec admitted in court that MS didn't have to take into consideration any market forces when they priced Win98, hrm doesn't that sound like a monopoly to you?). They want to keep their API's secret. Lets take a look at the real world (not the strange software one). Auto companies regularly buy competiter cars, drive them for a while then take them apart to see what makes them tick. It makes the auto companies stay in line with each other (within the limits of patants and intellectual right, yes). With software you have to use cleanroom techniques to reverse engineer things otherwise things get really hairy.
What then is the best solution? You have your choice of take away their ability to license to vendors (no income), take away their right to "innovate" or take away their right to refuse others knowledge of their product? Since they are making an operating system rather than a standalone word processor, it would seem that the SHOULD release the specs. Since they also produce an office suite, programming tools, and write hardware drivers, I guess they really don't need to release those pesky APIs for things like other competing compilers or optimized drivers.
There is a strong argument to be made against software patents, and I would support revoking all of MS's software patents along with the rest of the industry's patents if it is done in a reasonable way. But until that happens, I see no reason for the courts to make a special exception to Microsoft's lawful property rights. If software patents are bad, the solution is to repeal them, not simply to revoke them if they are "abused." Giving the courts the power to revoke/cripple patents at will is a terrible preceedent.
Aye, that it is.
This is perhaps the most ridiculous. For starters, this is a free speech violation, as it prohibits Microsoft from expressing an opinion on the topic. Furthermore, it seems to me that if this were done it would be a simplistic attempt to use the trial to bludgeon hardware manufacturers into building open systems. Open systems are in most cases a good thing, but computer companies have a right to make closed systems as well, and I see no reason to forbid them from getting MS ceritification.
The third point would be bad law. I understand RMS's reasoning, however. The problems is that MS does have a very tight grasp on the marktet. Once hardware vendors realize that there is money in them thar Open Source/Free Software people they will come around (i.e. Logitecs announcment today).
My Take on the situation: MS should "open" up their APIs. Even a simple disclosure of all them would be an improvment over the black box called windows. If I buy a machine from a big name company (like that will happen), I want to have a choice of OS. I never have thought of an OS as a commodity item. Again from http://www.m-w.com, and Operating system is: software that controls the operation of a computer and directs the processing of programs (as by assigning storage space in memory and controlling input and output functions). MS is trying to change that definition. Sure, the install media for the OS can come with a web browser, but don't call it an integral part of the OS. Anyway. Enough of this.
Corporations are not people in the same way that you and I are.
;)
The rights of a corporation are granted to it by the government, IIRC because the corporation can somehow achieve a greater good for the populace than individuals could, even if they worked together. These rights can be, and I feel this ought to be used more often, revoked if the corporation does not do some common good. (There is a campaign going to have Phillip-Morris' charter revoked. I'm no lawyer, but I expect this would nullify their copyrights, patents, etc. as the entity that owned them no longer existed)
If MS really were just a bunch of people, then they would not have the limited liability that they currently enjoy. MS could go down in flames, but no one would be responsible for paying their debts, or would go to jail, etc. You can't put a corporation in jail. Except maybe in Texas
Also, I guess they wouldn't be able to own things jointly. So each person would need to own their own tools, or have to borrow them or something. Would definately be interesting....
But at any rate, the rights of corporations are few. OTOH, they (sometimes literally) get away with murder, because most laws only apply to real people, and certainly a lot of meaningful penalties only do.
Anyone know more on the subject? (corrections, perhaps?)
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I'm not sure if the federal govt. does, but the state governments already have this power, though it's hardly ever been used.
I suppose the SEC or some other body could work in conjunction with the Washington state government to prevent MS from transferring their assets, etc. to a different company (chartered in a different state) if this went through. It probably wouldn't unless the Washington judiciary is pro open source.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Apple doesn't have a monopoly in personal computers. Furthermore, there aren't eight jillion companies who have their balls in Apple's grip. Apple isn't abusing their monopoly on computers they make (and that's silly anyhow; Dell has a monopoly on Dells, Packard Bell has a monopoly on Packard Bells (not that anyone would want it)) anyhow.
To be a monopoly you have to be BIG. Then the government doesn't care unless you use that monopoly to get another monopoly. And Apple has a monopoly in what now? And they're leveraging it into... gee, you tell me.
RMS is being pragmatic. There is actually a possibility that MS will undergo some sort of externally mandated change. Apple isn't even in court - why would he waste his time on comparatively small potatoes (e.g. everyone who isn't MS).
When Apple is the undisputed ruler of the microcomputer world this exercise has merit. Otherwise who cares?
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I'm confused by what RMS is thinking. His proposals seem to assume that MS is in this antitrust battle because they have been unfairly competing against the free software and Open Source community.
That's not what the trial is about though. However, propsition 1 he presents is an actual possiblity. It addresses one of MS's major threats against it's commercial competitors (the ones that are at the heart of the suit).
Remember, it's only a free bonus to the Open Source world if MS looses and gets whacked. This isn't about us vs. Microsoft.
hasta,
scottwimer
-- Beer. It's what's for breakfast.
There is one thing that really bugs me about the FSF and that is that stupid drawing of the gnu. It looks like it was done by a 7th grader. I'll probably get some hate mail for this, but I really think the FSF should get some skilled professional artists and web designers to volunteer some time.
Cheers
Eric
Right above where it asks me to contribute to the FSF, sits their beloved mascot, which makes me think of cleaning the barn instead of writing code or docs. Is there something implied that I don't know about?
I like all three proposals, kudos to RMS for a very clear, short and on-target article. I do feel thought that this would not be enough. We still need to break MS into at least two separate companies (not just divisions): applications and OS. I would also make the contracts with hardware vendors like Compaq and Dell public for revision. We don't just need to limit the future damage but try to mend the past one.
As I said, don't tell me that there are other choices because I remember the days when chosing a Word processor actually implied use of your brain and comparison of features. Today almost every company in the western world (I don't know about the rest) uses MSWord. No choice. You might try to use a compatible product but there's no way to avoid it. Same for spreadsheet. Same for gaming API, if it wasn't for John Carmack we would not have any choice between D3D and OpenGL and you could forget about Quake on Linux. :) ?) MS has destroyed people's freedom of choice in the field of applications for PC, that's a fact. They did it using unfair techniques and illegal contracts in collaboration with other vendors. They did it with threatening and treachery not competition.
How that happened ? Not with competition, I welcome competition and I know that to be competitive you must be tough. That's not the problem. The problem is killing other product putting bogus incompatibilities in Windows (DR DOS and OS/2 for just a couple of examples) As I said this practice has been used since the days of DOS 2.11 when MS decided to release the OS only after Lotus 1-2-3 was released in order to push their product (anybody remember Multiplan
Yeah, the API thing is one the other is that they can easily drive somebody out of business using the revenues from Windows. For example, they spent about 500 million dollars for IE and gave it for free just to destroy Netscape. With a split in two the application division will have to show profit and will have less availability of cash to do this kind of dirty tricks.
MS doesn't build any hardware ? How can you say that ? Let's see, there the mouse, the sidewinder joystick series, the USB speaker and the WebTV box. I think it's a prtty good list and I believe I forgot something.
The problem in this matter is not the so called MS-rights. MS deliberately removed one of the fundamental rights of people: freedom of choice. Unless you have no recollection of the PC industry the entiry history of PC SW development is defined by the tactict of MS used to crush competintion using the OS. This happened since the days of DOS 2.x. The point is not that MS write crappy software, the point is how the use it to control people. To this extent we have to stop them and regain freedom of choice. Don't tell me "if you don't like their software don't buy it". I havent bought MS software in all my life and I don't use it. But for millions of people there no choice and no alternative. They walk in a store and 99% of the times they will walk out with a Windows PC + MS Office.
I like the proposals of RMS, I do believe that that's not enough and MS should be broken into pieces. Even after that we will still have to work very hard to gain our freedom of choice back.
--Paolo
>1. Require Microsoft to publish complete >documentation of all interfaces between software >components, all communications protocols, and >all file formats.
>
>I see no reason why anyone has a right to know >anything about Microsoft's products. The fact >that Windows is popular does not make it public >domain software, and I see no moral obligation >on their part to document or not document any >part of it.
>
Actually, I find a strong argument could be made for the implementation of this clause, as reguards the OS that Microsoft develops. For one thing, MS is not supposed to have secret channels between its OS and software divisions where they can give unfair advantages to the software division over everyone else (like, by having special code written in the OS to help support some feature of the software, but not disclosing this new functionality to the rest of us).
By forcing them to publish all those informations would be beneficial for all, and it would keep Microsoft honest.
Claude Angers
The problem that all of these "MS should be required to..." solutions have in common, is that they would require direct government regulation to maintain. Some people would argue that that is a good thing, but there are real problems with it. Will this new regulating body only apply to Microsoft, or will it apply to the entire industry?
There are other companies that might eventually gain the power that Microsoft has. If, down the line, MS lost a great deal of its power, or even went out of business (Linux, anyone ;) it would be rediculous to have a regulating body for an obsolete company. On the other hand, if it regulated the entire industry that could be at least as oppressing as Microsoft. Imagine a world where software innovations had to be filtered through a beauracracy before becoming available to the public. Granted, most of the things that were pointed out would be good in the short term. But the minute we say "regulate" there will be abuses. It may work out fine for a while, but eventually big business will bring money and the politicians will follow them, things will change and we'll end up with the government protecting money just as always. That's not what we want.
I would rather have a non-regulatory solution that allows the rest of the industry to simply continue without government intervention. Rather than creating a body that could sterilize the computer industry and make it into just another business as usual economic sector.
There's more at stake here than just Microsoft, it's the whole concept of free software (not merely "Open Source") that we are fighting for. Let's not lose sight of our goals because of hate for one particular company.
* As is generally the case, my opinions do not reflect those of my employer.
I'd like to see a proposal for what _we_ should do if MS _wins_ the trial
---
Of all the solutions I've read, this one really seems like the fairest - instead of trying to cripple Microsoft or hurt them in an effort to make things fair, RMS is simply proposing that the playing field be leveled so that the quality of the final product is the only determining factor towards purchase. I've always liked how RMS has been one of the most level-headed and rational in this debate - see Is Microsoft the Great Satan?, even if he does view Bill Gates personally as a jerk. It seems like a much better way to get what you want, than say, posting a doctored-up image on your website portraying Bill Gates as Hitler, and Windows users as Nazis. (ahem)
Whatever you think of his politics, you gotta admit RMS stays loyal to em. I don't see any vehement "MS must die" rhetoric here -- the suggestions he makes here tend to support maximum freedom for open programming.
:)
For those who complain about the "MS must publish interface specs" part, bear in mind: these are potential solutions to be applied if Microsoft is found "guilty as charged" of monopoly status, and long-standing legal precedent (along with common sense) demands that monopolies operate under different rules than "normal" companies or concerns.
One other outcome I'd like to see from this trial (hoping against hope here) is a serious re-evaluation of the policy of issuing patents for software. But right now I'll knock on wood and hope that things turn out as well as they can without dreaming any further
Nothing worth doing is worth doing today.
"To whom it may concern:
.sig, please.]
The government of the United States, by court order, has declared that the following patents
and copyrights owned by the Microsoft Corporation, [insert list], are null and void. The works covered are now in the public domain and their use and duplication are no longer subject to regulation by the United States.
Love,
President William Clinton."
No regulation or enforcement. In fact,
quite the contrary.
[ignore my munged
Many of the comments have forgotten or are unaware of what the DoJ anti-trust case is about. Microsoft has been accused of using it's monopoly position as the desktop OS to unfairly compete in another field. In this case, the other field is application software or more specifically, web browsers. That is why much of the DoJ case has focused on MS's contracts that tied in Windows with IE (e.g., IE icon placement, no Netscape installation). Additional evidence was presented to illustrate that these predatory practices was not exclusively related to just web browsers.
Hence, if MS is found guily, the DoJ would likely propose a solution to prevent MS from using it's desktop OS monopoly to unfairly compete in another field (applications). The breakup of MS is one obvious solution (i.e., separate the OS from everything else). Unfortunately, I don't remember the DoJ presenting any evidence concerning patents nor hardware specifications. Therefore, RMS's 2nd & 3rd points may be irrelevant.
As for the 1st point, some evidence of MS software manipulation was presented (e.g., by Apple, Sun, and Intel). Hence, it is possible that the DoJ would consider opening up the code. The states involved in the case have also raised this possibility.
Finally, don't forget that being a monopoly is not illegal. However, being a monopoly means that you must abide by a different set of rules that don't necessarily apply to the rest of the industry.
Standard Oil was a oil monopoly at about the turn of the century. What got them into trouble was the establishment of associate companies that they incorporated into a trust. They then had a stranglehold on transporting their oil, end distribution, financing, etc... This type of business institution was prevalent 100 yrs ago and led T. Roosevelt, among others, to develop trust busting legislation. Ironically, Roosevelt was a Republican.
To add to the rest of your comments, there is another way that a monopoly can be maintained. A monopoly can use it's dominant position in one realm, to kill competition in another. It then extends it domain further establishing it's strength.
"Proposal 1 (require MS to open all APIs) has already been rejected by capatalist pundits as being more of an advantage to Microsoft's competitors rather than helping consumers."
I read the article you referenced; it is the typical "Anything that drives the Dow up is Good" kind of paper.
The bottom line is this: the most likely scenario of full format (API, file, protocol) disclosure is that people can write applications that truly work with Windows as well as Microsoft's applications do. Interoperability skyrockets and tying vanishes. And suddenly, I no longer have to have a copy of MS Office to exchange info with people who do. I can buy Something Else! And so could my correspondents, if they choose. All of a sudden, Microsoft and Star and Applix and Corel have feature-comparable applications that all see comparable performance. The companies have to compete for my purchasing dollar. One of the easiest ways for them to do that is not to add dancing paperclips, but to -- brace yourself, this is a big thing -- cut their prices.
And price-cutting is Good for consumers. Yes, full disclosure helps competitors more than consumers in the short run -- but you can't help consumers without competition and you can't have competition without helping the (unlawfully restrained) competitors.
Learn to spell: nickel, missile, lose, solely, amendment, speech, kernel, probably, ridiculous, deity, hierarchy, versus
"isn't there a danger that by over-regulating microsoft, what would really be accomplished is a sort of affirmative action for microsoft competitors?"
Yes -- and the reasoning is the same as the reasoning that drove AA laegislation: those who have unfairly or unlawfully gained an advantage are not going to surrender it willingly, so we provide disproportionate assistance to the underdogs _until the inequity is resolved._
The question of when that takes place is certainly open to question; for me, one indicator that competition has been restored would be when Microsoft tells Michael Dell "if you want to put Windows on any of your machines, you'll put it on all of them" and his response is "suck my dick, you assholes."
Learn to spell: nickel, missile, lose, solely, amendment, speech, kernel, probably, ridiculous, deity, hierarchy, versus
I find it amazing the extent to which people are willing to ignore Microsoft's rights simply because they write bad software.
No, that's not why. This is a trial. M$ is on trial for breaking the law, the anti-trust, anti-monopoly law. Court cases have penalties for losing defendants.
It's convenient for your argument to forget this. If M$ loses, the court can impose penalties. In general, judges have wide latitude. Have you never heard of criminal cases where the judge imposes novel punishments, such as the drunk driver who had to write a letter every day while in prison to the mother of the kid he killed?
So if the judge decides that proper punishment is releasing the source, or APIs, or splitting up the company, or anything else, he has a pretty wide latitude.
their punishment should be restricted to that provided by law
Yes indeedy, and that's exactly what all the discussion is about. All the proposed remedies *are* legal if the judge imposes them and they make it thru appeal.
I see no reason why anyone has a right to know anything about Microsoft's products.
Because the remedies in anti trust cases are designed to prevent further abuses, just like a 20 year prison sentence is designed to prevent further criminal activity. In this case, the remedy is to prevent them holding a monopoly.
I see no reason for the courts to make a special exception to Microsoft's lawful property rights.
If you commit a crime, and the court confiscates your property as part of the restitution, is that not legal? Again, you are forgetting that M$ is on trial here.
The idea that corporations do not have rights is baloney.
The idea that corporations can not be held accountable for breaking laws is baloney.
--
Infuriate left and right
The only way I can morally justify the M$ anti-trust trial is if indeed they did engage in _blatant_ non competitive practices. I don't believe that browser intergration, even if to block Netscape warrants the kind of penalizations that are being talked about. Heck, if they put MS Golf, Bob, Office, and Proxy Server in Windows 98, I'd still have to use it at work.
The point is that OS functionality is a grey area. 5 years ago, PPP wasn't included with most OSes, Win/Mac or UNIX. Morning Star Technologies made the Morning Star PPP software, should they have gone about litigating with Sun, SGI and Apple because of the inlcuded PPP software with the respective OS?
How about this; if M$ came out with IE5 for Linux, could they sue the KDE group because browser code is distributed?
However, _if_ M$ did something blatant, like, oh, I don't know, make Windows 3.1 intentionally give fake error messages when installed upon a competing DOS, that act in itself is enough (IMHO) to call out the Trust-Buster Storm Troopers and AT-ATs and send them up to Redmond.
"oohhh... I didn't know Schopenhauer was a philosopher!"
While RMS' suggestions are linked to helping free software, they do also provide opportunities for other commercial software vendors to not be blocked by the monopoly that MS has created.
The "penalty" should reduce their monopolistic powers, without crippling thier ability to do business (make money) in a fair way.
In this fashion, the first suggestion prevents MS from creating propietary, undocumented file formats and protocols which extend their monopoly from the desktop OS to the office suite to the e-mail client to the server... and beyond. Breaking up MS into Baby Bills could have the same net effect, but places a greater burden on MS to remain competitive than appropriate.
Item two is tricky; it is required for the first part to work. Removing software patents altoghether would be an improvement, but there are some things that are truly worth a patent. I personally don't understand how effective this solution really could be, though.
The third comment... ok it is a blatant push for open source hardware. I think this is something better suited for the next hardware manufacturer's antitrust trial.
In truth, i would like the government to make a minimal ruling to solve the issue, and not have them regulating software any further. However, something has to be done to level things out a little bit.
prk
The first part of the article is a direct ad hominem attack on Ralph Nader. I can deal with that, but it certainly isn't fitting for a Washington think tank...unless, of course, that the think tank is paid to do 'research' to promote certain viewpoints ( in this case, unabated, unregulated American captialism.)
That article proves its intellectual bankruptcy with the following quote:
"...OSS rejects free market competition and loses the market's distinct advantages to meet consumer needs with quality products and targeted marketing. In a free market, identifiable manufacturers own the product. They are responsible for product performance, and they can be held liable for inexcusable flaws."
The last line is especially telling-no software company can be held liable for flaws. If something doesn't work like you think it should, then you're pretty much SOL. ( EULA nonsense) As for the topic of ownership, software is quickly becoming less product-oriented and more service oriented ( that's where the real money is ), and there is certainly a great deal of room for companies to compete in services, much more so than in products.
Why is that? Because with proprietary software, there are the "haves" and "have-nots". The practices of vendor lock-in, interface hiding, and patent clamping have virtually held software innovation to a stand-still. If it wasn't for the need of standardized computing ( items antithetical to the proprietary tactics above), things would be even more stagnant than they are now. RMS offers solutions to all three of the practices that MS has used to singlehandedly retard computing for at least 5-8 years. And yes, that includes item number one, first and foremost.
Just think: What if office suites had become the killer app for data interchange, instead of the breeding pits for vendor lock-in through file formats? We might have had XML in everyday use _long_ ago. What if MS/Novell had chosen TCP/IP instead of IPX or NetBeui? I'll leave that one for your mind to toss around.
In short, if these scenarios would have played out differently, then hardware might be catching up with software, and not the other way around. RMS suggests way to stop poor practices now, and thus lessen the devastation that proprietary computing has wrought on the digital landscape.
I have to agree with you on this, and the reason harken back to the whole API thing.
When Microsoft announced their OLE technology for Windows, they did so nearly simultaneously with the launch of Office that took advantage of those feautures. What this amounted to was leveraging their control over development of the OS to give Office a competitive advantage.
Thus, the problem of MS pulling a blitzkrieg attack where they exploit a loophole to code apps that use the new APIs internally before the are even released to early adopters and then release those apps before the others have a chance to react.
As long as their is not some formal delineation and separtion between OS and app divsions, expect this kind of behavior to be rampant. We are dealing with a company with all the self-justified delusion that normally only accompanies cult members. This kind of behavior, in their eyes, is not only ethical, but indeed a moral imperative, done for the sake of "innovation".
As for my solution to this whole mess:
Redmonda delenda est.
But other parts of the Win32 platform that are hidden are done so for _purely_ anitcompetitive reasons.
1) Internet explorer integration. Why can't I integrate Netscape instead of IE?
2) Explorer shell. Why are the LiteStep people having such terrible problems with compatibility? Why isn't there an effective MacOS replacement for the Windows shell?
3) Every MS app goes in and manipulates the file associations without regard to user wishes or desires. Most applications now are forced to combat with the same anticompetitive, anti-choice with mirror reponses.
Redmonda delenda est.
The question you must now answer is this:
If the provisions RMS makes are implemented, would the entire software industry ( both free and proprietary) benefit?
1) Open APIs? Certainly benefits free software since NDA's aren't an option in free code. Benefits proprietary software when the API's aren't even disclosed at all, no matter what the arrangement. I'd say the industry benefits on all fronts.
2) Patents. Encourages start-ups ( both free and proprietary) to overcome the oppression of patent lockdown. Allows greater sharing of ideas, resulting in more consumer choice. Allows companies not to use MS patents if they want to keep their own patents under their control. Benefits free software community, who is exposed to the patent issue and has no patents ( with restrictive licensing) of its own the greatest. But the biggest winner is still the consumer, since all will have greater access to more ideas and thus resultign in a higher degree of innovation.
3) Open hardware programming specifications for all certified drivers. Much less clear than 1) or 2). Forces hardware companies to sacrifice their freedom to hoard information in order to provide guaranteed functionality for customers. Better solution-promote consumer awareness of hardware companies that are free-software friendly. Publically vilify those that are not. Don't let MS's crimes give an excuse to strip the freedom of other companies. Just make those companies that don't comply look like the nasty, paranoid, "greed is good, avarice as always" American corporations that they really are. Inform the public and let natural selection do its wonders in our incredibly time-accelerated industry.
Redmonda delenda est.
For one, let me address the last line of your post:
"Regulations and restrictions must be industry-wide, not just levied against the most successful of contenders."
MS is the only defendant on trial for abusing monopoly power. Note that each of the companies you have mentioned does not hold monopoly status, and thus cannot abuse the power therein.
Now I'll address the question of "Can RMS's actions work without the whole software industry taking hold?" The answer: yes.
1) Nondisclosed API's are only beneficial if they are used in conjuction with an established product with monopoly marketshare as a means for giving other products a competitive advantage. If the nondisclosed API's are in a non-established product, then the customer can simply choose another product. Say Apple put a hidden API into Quick Time that allowed the MacOS to perform superior to Windows on certain streaming applications. Fine then, they do that. Since Quick Time is not in a monopoly position, then one could choose Real Video G2 or MPEG-I Layer 4 for video content. One is not forced to forced to have QuickTime to view internet videos. There is a choice. There is no choice ( until recently ) for desktop operating systems. Nor is there any doubt to Windows' monopoly marketshare.
2) Patents. The patent pool takes away any hope of MS reclaiming its closed API tactics. ( as RMS pointed out) The key is to keep the Windows monopoly from being leveraged onto other products.
3) Hardware. I think this is a consumer education issue ( lay out the quid to cooperative vendors, calmor for support and openly chastise stubborn companies ) more than a MS-realted problem.
Redmonda delenda est.
I find it amazing the extent to which people are willing to ignore Microsoft's rights simply because they write bad software.
(Bold tags added by me)
Where exactly did you get that idea?
This has very little to do with the fact that MS writes bad software, and a whole lot to do with the fact that they use their monopoly to strong arm others from selling software that would compete with theirs.
The idea that corporations do not have rights is baloney. Individuals have rights, and corporations are just associations of individuals.
But as history shows, protecting freedom is usually stoping large associations of individuals from taking away the rights of smaller groups of individuals.
Corporations do have rights. But they are not allowed to do some of the things that MS has done.
This sig is false.
But its all moot. I agree with those who note that the DOJ suit has nothing to do with competition via free software and they will not impose open source remedies.
If RMS or others want complete and correct docs, they'll need the code. Its complete and correct by definition.
You've already admitted you don't think anti-trust laws apply in this case.
Actually I am opposed to the concept of antitrust law. But the point is the same.
The ban on forcing computer makers to pay for Windows regardless of whether they install it or not (found in the original Microsoft consent decreee) is functionally equivalent to an injunction, but accomplished nothing.
But if in fact Microsoft is obligated to obey the consent decree, (which I don't think it should be) then the court should enforce that obligation. And in that case, if MS continues to flout the consent decree, fines will bring them into line. It is only a matter of how high they have to go.
You are basically arguing that Microsoft should get a slap on the wrist and be sent on its way.
To be honest, yes, that is what I think should happen--because I don't think they have done anything wrong. However, i think that even if you accept the argument that they should be punished, I still think that the rule of law should apply, and that the punishment should fit the crime. Even murderers have rights. If you are convisted of murder, you are still fed, housed, protected from cruel and unusual punishments, allowed to appeal, etc. At no point does the rights of any person or organization become completely irrelevant. The rights forfeit by a particular crime should be comensurate with the nature of the crime. Most of the punishment suggestions I have seen assume that the crimes for which it is convicted are irrelevant, and that all that matters is what we want, regardless of justice. In other words, they re more interested in punihing Microsoft for being evil than in the actual crimes for which they are convicted.
I'd recommend arguing from first principles: namely, stick with your argument that anti-trust laws are bogus.
Well, as you may have noticed, I have done that on a couple of occasions already, and I think we have beat that horse to death. If anyone wants to see those threads, they can probably find them in my user history.
MS deliberately removed one of the fundamental rights of people: freedom of choice.
This is an extraordinarily messy concept. If you want to look at it literally, I have dozens of choices: Mac OS, Linux, Be, the other frreeware unices, Sun, SGI, and many smaller ones. Now it is true that none of these are approriate for some tasks, but I fail to see how one can reasonably draw a brightline between the cases where we do and do not have "enough" freedom of choice. Do you use market share? number of competitors? how agressively the monopolist competes?
I think it is vey dangerous to assert and put into law rights unless they can be clearly defined. It is clear 99% of the time when someone has committed rape, murder, theft, etc. On the other hand, what constitutes a violation of freedom of choice is so arbitrary that it pretty much allows prosecutors to go after any company with a majority market share. And since what constitutes a crime is so vague, it is next to impossible to defend themselves. They are essentially required to prove that they did not attempt to reduce the market share of their competitors in "unfair" ways. But that is what competitors do--they try to beat their competition, and what onstitutes unfair can be changed to fit almost anything.
The result is that Microsoft is being asked to prove that it is not a meanie. And obviously, they have been mean to a number of people, so they are likely to lose. But is this really how we want to make laws? Not on specific actions but on elastic categories of behavior that fit far more people than we can hope to prosecute? I think not.
As an example, let's look at Apple. They hav screwed a *lot* of people over, including cloners, Opendoc developers, Newton users, etc. In fact, Steve Jobs is a downright ruthless competitor, and if anything counts as anticompetitive, their closed-OS, closed-system, change-strategies-every-two-years way of doing business qualifies. The only difference I can see is that they are not as successful as MS. So is it ok to be anticompetitive is you are the underdog, but not if you are successful? That makes no sense to me.
No, that's not why. This is a trial. M$ is on trial for breaking the law, the anti-trust, anti-monopoly law. Court cases have penalties for losing defendants.
/.ers are so passionate about this is not a concern for the law but because they see it as an extension of the Linux vs Windows war.
I suppose I misspoke here. This is the official reason. Still, I get the feeling that the reason that many
Yes indeedy, and that's exactly what all the discussion is about. All the proposed remedies *are* legal if the judge imposes them and they make it thru appeal.
you missed the second half of my sentence. Laws need to be specific. There are no murder laws that say "someone convicted for murder may gat anything from a $10 fine to the death penalty, at the discretion of the judge." Nor should antitrust law allow a judge to do pretty much whatever he likes as now is the case. Obviously there much be some choice, but too much is an invitation for curruption and injustice.
Because the remedies in anti trust cases are designed to prevent further abuses, just like a 20 year prison sentence is designed to prevent further criminal activity. In this case, the remedy is to prevent them holding a monopoly.
But if their crime is "having a monopoly," then the proper response is an injunction against holding a monopoly and possible punative fines. As an example, if I am convicted of stealing a car, the judge can order me to pay for it, but he is not going to order me to get the money in a specific way. In exactly the same way, the judge can order MS to reduce its market share or whatever, but he has no business micromanaging their activities.
If you commit a crime, and the court confiscates your property as part of the restitution, is that not legal? Again, you are forgetting that M$ is on trial here.
If I am convicted of shoplifting, the judge should not confiscate my computer or order me to stand on my head. The punishment should fit the crime. The patent suggestion has no apparent connection to the monopoly. Every company uses software patents in this way. I see no reason why the patents should be singled out.
The idea that corporations can not be held accountable for breaking laws is baloney.
I agree. However, the "held accountable must be defined specifically in the law.
And I think that the concept of antitrust is baloney, so even if they are convicted, I would consider them victims.
DrDOS is only one example. It could be argued that everything that MS is is due to their using illegal tactics and is therefore forfeit.
This is my point. I don't know the details of the DrDOS thing, but if they violated the rights of the DrDOS people, then they should be held accountable. But here Microsoft is not being tried for any specific offense. They are being tried for having a monopoly. And the evidence is a whole bunch of things, where any of them by themselves would be perfectly legal. Somehow, however, when you get a large enough market share, you have to start being nice to your competition, and making sure they have a resonable chance, and that they you aren't too compeititive.
To repeat: If Microsoft broke a specific law, one that involves a victim, I wholeheartedly support suing them for that offense and having them compensate the victim. But I oppose prosecuting them for "anticompetitive prractices," even though none of these practices by themselves are illegal.
You've said that you don't agree with anti-trust laws, but it bears repeating that the US courts have affirmed them time and time again. And the foundation of those laws is that a company which holds a monopoly is a special case, subject to different rules. The same rights do not apply.
And this is not a problem? It is a very bad thing to arbitrarily deprive a company of its rights because their market share is too high. "Monopoly" is a very fuzzy concept. Technically, Microsoft does not have a monopoly, it has a number of competitors. The only way to define MS as a monopoly is to define some market share threshhold, but then we are using demographics to decide companies' rights, which is a very scary concept.
On the subject of corporations having rights or not: Ever seen a corporation literally imprisoned? Ever meet someone 140 years old who existed on 5 continents simultaneously? My point is that corporations and people are not the same.
So what? If I were to invent an immortality pill and a transporter, would I lose my rights? I could live 140 years, I could be on 5 continents nearly simultaneously, and you couldn't keep me in jail.
But seriously, the rights of corporations are not new rights, and they do not literally lie with the corporation, since the corporation is not a physical entity. The rights of a corporation are only an extension of the rights of its members. Nothing more, nothing less.
But there is no reasonable basis for granting the legal status of a person to a fictitious entity ipso facto.
Not the legal status of a person. Look at marriage. A marriage has many of the characteristics of a corporation: special tax laws, joint property, the ability to be on two continents at once, etc. Does this mean that a marriage is a "ficticious entity" that cannot own property or have free speech rights? If a couple is arrested for something, does the court have an unlimited right to fine them, since their property is owned by a "ficticious entity?" The issue is exactly the same. The same arguments can be made about churches, schools, governments, social clubs, universities, unions, etc. Groups get their right from the rights of the individuals who make up that group.
Repeating myself...
Somehow when you get a large enough market share, you have to start being nice to your competition, and making sure they have a resonable chance, and that you aren't too compeititive.
This is my point. When you have a small market share, doing things like this is "competing." When you get a large market share, the is is "abusing your monopoly." Companies are supposed to compete. That is what they do. Microsoft should not be penalized for being good at it.
It's called product dumping and most of the U.S. was furious when Japan did that to us. It's no different here except the dumper is the poster boy for American Capitalism.
Anti-dumping laws are really strange. I fail to see how charging too low a price for something or giving it away for free can be a crime. If someone will give us something for free, why should we be forced to pay for it? I am certainly not "outraged" when Japan sends us cheap supercomputers or steel or anything else. "Dumping" is simply a term that inefficient companies use to protect themselves from competition. If Netscape were so great, people would use it even if the alternative was free.
I think the Standard oil monopoly is largely a myth. My understanding was that they never had a complete monopoly, and in any event, they continually *lowered* oil prices and *raised* quality.
And even if one does have a monopoly, it is next to impossible to maintain it except possibly in some very specialized cases like telephones. The moment a monopoly starts to raise its prices very far above the market level, soimebody is gonna start up a competing business. That is what the capital markets are there for: to route funds to potentially profitable companies. The only way to gain a monopoly and keep it is to keep your prices down and your customers happy. And even then, it takes years and lots of hard work.
Dumping looks good for the customer in the short term... until every player in the market but one is destroyed, and the victor gains back the revenue they lost during the price war by gouging everybody for the next few years or decades.
And what is stopping someone else to enter the market once you start "gouging" me?
There are also a number of other concerns. One is that markets are never as clear-cut as they are in economics books. So no company can ever get 100% of an actual market. There will always be niche players that target small segments that are not served by the monopolist. Any of these niche players will take the opportunity when they start "gouging" and expand their market share. Remember also that demand is elastic. I will have to sell a lot of stuff below cost to drive my competition out of business, and then no one will want to buy from me once I drive prices up.
There is also the issue of definition: at what point does fair competition become "predatory pricing?" In practice, it means pretty much whatever the judge involved says it means, which is very bad law.
The only way to define ANYTHING as a monopoly is through market share coupled with market pressure the company can exert. Microsoft has a 90-percent marketshare of the desktop systems (where the case is being tried).
So 90% market share is a monopoly? What about in a very small industry, that cannot support more than a couple of companies? Or in a brand new market that has as yet only one producer? Or in the case of a company whose competition is grossly incompetent? None of these standards can be written into law in a reasonable way. That is my point: basing law on the concept of "monopoly" is extremely arbitrary and makes the system ripe for abuse.
in the USofA (where Microsoft is incorporated), the rights of the individuals are not supposed to be revolked merely at the whim of the majority.
Huh? The rights of corporations are? I certainly don't think so.
As for the marriage example, you are right that limited liability makes the marriage different from a corporation. But I don't think that this is the least bit relevant to the question of whether it has rights. The argument I have heard (yours may be different) is that since corporations are not persons, they have no rights. This applies equally to marriages. And if you don't believe that married couple have joint property, then why is there always a lengthy procedure during a divorce to decide who-gets-what? If the property was seperate, they could go their seperate ways immediately.
I don't remember for sure if this is the argument you made. If you were making a different argument, please correct me. But the essential feature of a corporation in terms of rights--that it is a ficticious entity comprised of more than one individual--applies equally to both marriages and corporations. I don't see what the connection is between limited liability and the lack of rights of corporations.
Well, I have made a number of points in other posts, but I will summarize.
Antitrust law is a vague, arbitrary, and overreaching law. The relevant phrase, I believe, is that Microsoft is guilty of "combinations in restraint of trade." That's it. If that is not vague, I don't know what is. If you look at the history of antitrust laws, you find that the definitions and standards change every couple of decades, to fit the new bad guy. And since the law is so broad, it is possible to nail anyone with a sufficient market share, even if they were doing things that were not crimes at the time they occured. In short, antitrust law is an unjust mess, and it should be repealed. In the meantime, I consider anyone prosecuted under it to be a victim, MS and Intel included.
This does not mean that I think Bill Gates walks on water. In fact I don't like Windoze, and I realize that they have done some pretty sleazy things. it may be that they have broken some legitimate laws, like fraud, patent infringement, or whatever, and in that case, I fully support going after them for that.
But I don't think that having a monopoly is a crime, and I don't think that abusing it (whatever that means) should be either. The merits of the government's case is irrelevant, because Microsoft is being prosecuted using an unjust law.
What do you mean by 'only an extension'? People do not forfeit their individual rights as members of a corporation.
How about shareholders? They surrender their property rights in the property that they use to buy the shares. This is the source of the company's property rights. The things that the company owns are in fact jointly owned by the shareholders, and the shareholder delegate the right to control that property to the officers of the company. To take away the property of the company is to steal from the shareholders.
Yes. Marriages don't have free speech rights, people do. Of course, in practice the difference is so slight as to be unneccessary.
I would argue that there is no difference. When we say that the marriage has the right to speak, we are simply saying that either partner has the right to speak for both of them. The same is true of corporations. When an officer puts out a press release, he is excersizing his personal free speech rights on behalf of the corporation. Sop to ban MS from certifying computers that are not open violates the free speech rights of the individual officers, and by extension those of the company. When I say that a company has a right to something, I mean that the individuals in the company have that right, just as when I say that a company does something, I mean that individuals in the company did it.
but there is no limited liability to give significance to the fictitious entity.
This is an important point, and one that needs to be addressed, but it is not clear how this negates the rights of the corporation.
Me:The same arguments can be made about churches, schools, governments, social clubs, universities, unions, etc.
Yes again. These entities are subject to laws which do not apply to individuals.
In the case of churches, private schools, social clubs, private universities, and non-compulsory unions, I would argue that they should not have any special laws apply to them. The government-run case is different, because they have additional restrictions due to the fact that they use taxpayer money. But other than that, I see no reason for a person's rights to change simply by virtue of forming an organization.
Oh boy... Lot's interesting points here...
There is an argument to be made that the telephone and power companies are "natural monopolies:" the economies of scale are so great that a one-producer situation is inevitable. I am skeptical of this argument, but in any event, this is clearly different from the Microsoft case. There are a number of competing OS's, so you do have a choice. The concept of "undue influence" is too vague to make laws over.
I also do not believe it is the government's place to require ingredient lists on food, but that is another thread entirely.
If I write a story in Microsoft Word, I should be able to retrieve it, even if I no longer have Microsoft word. They have no rights to my intellectual property, and no right to keep it from me.
When you purchased Word, you purchased the right to put a copy of it on your hard drive and use it. That's it. If you did not want to be dependent on Word, you were free to use Claris or WordPerfect or notepad or whatever. Unless Microsoft committed to help you convert your information between formats without using Word, I see no reason they should be required to. You chose to use Word, and you knew you would need Word to read your documents.
Can you come up with a convincing argument for why selling something doesn't inherently imply selling the information on how to use it and interact with it?
I would want an argument the other way around. There are lots of examples. When I buy a pound of sugar, I don't get a cookbook with it. When I buy a car, I don't get a shop manual. I don't see how such an obligation could ever exist unless the producer has committed to do so.
Can you give a convincing reason why a company should be allowed to make a product which hides my information, or the information that someone else gives to me, in a format that only they can read so that I am forced to pay them for it?
Well, if you want to be literal about it, you hid the information. You just used their software to do it. If you are worried about it DON't USE WORD. I don't.
Think of it this way: do you think that it would be OK if Honda sells you a car, that can only use Honda ExpensoTires, and they're the sole manufacturer of them?
Unless they had promised that there would be other sources, absolutely. If you are worried about it, you should do research beforehand.
And if you only found out about it afterwards (how many software boxes say "This product uses a proprietary format that binds you to our products and doesn't allow interoperability with other people, excepting that they also use this product")
Most boxes also do not say "Warning! this software will not triple your hard drive space, will not improve your sex life, and will not cause your computer to levitate off of your desk" either, but that doesn't mean I expect them. Software companies can write whatever features they want in their software, and the consumer is free to buy or not buy it. It is not secret that Word is a proprietary format, and anyone who cares can find out with minimal effort.
As for the slavery, it is completely irrelevant, and there are so many things about that paragraph that are irrelevant that I am not going to bother to respond.
I'm a Libertarian. I assume you are familiar with their ideas, but in case not, the have a web page. anyway, in particular:
I want to know if you're one of those people who basically ascribes to the doctrine that the world doesn't owe anyone a living, so you shouldn't take care of anyone else.
The former does not imply the latter. I think it is in one's self interest to do good things for those one cares about, and to be polite and helpful to a point to those around you. I am also a proponent of individual rights in the Jeffersonian sense. I don't think I have an obligation to help others, but that does not mean that I don't.
But the views that you expressed sound like the views of the dog-eat-dog proponent, that is, one who believes that because a dog can eat another dog, and sometimes will, that's a perfectly fine situation.
Well the human equivalent would be murder, which I am opposed to, if that is what you mean. I am not particularly concerned with the welfare of dogs, so if the owner of both dogs consented, I guess I would not have a problem with it. As far as i know dogs never eat each other.
You see, the problem with microsoft is not that they don't have the "right" to do what they've done. In the Hobbsian sense they have the right to do anything that they can get away with. On the other hand, they don't have the right to do what they've done in the sense of deserving it, or it being morally permissible.
Microsoft has done some sleazy things, and some of them are probably immoral. But i don't think the simple fact of making a closed, buggy, undocumented, unfair, unsupported OS is. If they are guilty of fraud, slander, breach of contract, intellectual property theft, or other crimes that have victims, I wholeheartedly support going after them for it. But the antitrust laws are not about that. Netscape does not have a right to its market share, so Microsoft did not steal it from them.
do you think that narcotics should be regulated?
No.
Do you think that crack dealers are simply "good businesmen" (they are selling a product for which there is a large demand)?
They are selling a destructive product, and I disapprove of their actions. But I do not feel that I (or by extension my government) has the right to ban it. The War on Drugs would require its own thread to discuss properly.
Just like it should be illegal for microsoft to compete by filing hundreds of lawsuits against its competitors,
Well this is an unjustified use of force, and the aggrieved party would be justified in countersuing for lost damages.
sending them hundreds of pounds of mail every day
If they ask Mirosoft to stop and they refuse, then this is a violation of their property rights (they own their mailbox) and they would be justified in suing.
flooding their email box with messages, or ping flooding their competitors websites into oblivion,
Same arguments as above. This is a violation of property rights.
It should be illegal for them to build addiction devices into their products.
You chose to use that product, and you have every right not to. It is true that doing so is inconvenient, but it is not the job of Microsoft to make sure that its competition does not fall behind.
But the problem with us coming to an understanding seems to be that your view of morality is "anything not directly violent is ok".
You are operating on the premise "anything immoral shouild be illegal." I reject that premise. The question is not whether something is immoral, it is whether the government is morally justified in using force to impose its will.
Why should the government dictate that blacks have to be able to use the same bathrooms in private establishments as whites.
No, the question is "why should the government force blacks to use different bathrooms?" The primary problem in the South was not private discrimination. It was laws that *required* discrimination. repealing those laws would have eliminated most of the discrimination.
Or why should blacks be able to sit in the front of the bus like whites in privately owned buses.
Well I am not sure whether the buses were private or not back then, but I believe that it was illegal to mingle whites with blacks on busses. If the bus was in fact privately owned, and the owner chose to put blacks in the back, I would not have any business objecting. This does not make it ok, it simply is not right for the government to make it illegal.
Or why shouldn't a company be able to hire only white males solely because they're white males? It's their business if they want to do that.
If a business chose to do that, I would allow it. I would not approve. And such a business would pay a price for this, because qulified women and minorities would go to the competition.
I'm assuming that you're against equal employment laws, correct? And you believe that child labor should be acceptable because either the kid or his parents should be responsible for the kid.
Yes for the first. Yes on the second assuming that the welfare of the child is not clearly endangered.
And I assume that loansharking should be perfectly legal.
I am not sure what "loansharking" is, but if you mean lending money, then yes.
And that electricity and water companies should be able to charge whatever they want.
I would be inclined to say yes, assuming that they do are not owned/operated/subsidized/regulated by the government.
If the water company decided one day that they were going to charge everyone 100% of their assets for a drop of water, that's fine.
No one would pay it, so if they want to waste their time, go ahead.
And there's nothing wrong with what OPEC did, is there? And I assume that price-fixing should be perfectly legal.
OPEC was not too successful. They made a small amount of extra money for a few years, before prices collapsed, and it would have been even less successful, had our government not exascerbated the problem with price controls. Price-fixing in general does not work too well.
Out of curiosity, since you're dependent on your parents for food etc. in the first X years of your life, do they in effect own you? Should they be able to starve you, etc. if they want? Send you out naked into the snow if they don't want you in their house or wearing their clothes?
I sense that you are more interested in making me look bad than actually finding out my opinions, but I don't really care.
I think there is an argument to be made that you are obligated to take care of your children, because you made a unilateral decision to bring them into the world. I was never consulted about whether my parents had me or not, so in a sense they have a duty to get me to the point where I can take care of myself. I am not too sure about that argument. Children are a special case because they cannot care for themselves.
What do you propose to restrict? What laws do you say should be on the books?
If you are actually interested, look into Libertarianism. If your point is that I am a member of the lunatic fringe, then you are free to think that.
Asking for Microsoft to have all the rights possesed by its shareholders without making the shareholders take responsibility for Microsoft is morally inconsistent.
OK, I agree here. There may be some specific, legally defined difference between the rights of an individual and those of a corporation. But they still have rights, and those right still need to be specific and legally defined. The claim I was objecting to was that corporations have no rights. Microsoft does not have all the rights of a corporation, but it certainly has some.
Pollution is good, it shows man?s conquest of nature, I want to see more of it!
Would you mind telling me where she said that? Rand was no environmentalist, but I find it hard to believe she would have said that. And I certainly would not support it.
I find it amazing the extent to which people are willing to ignore Microsoft's rights simply because they write bad software. There are arguments (I think bad ones) to be made that Microsoft has committed a crime, and should be punished, but if this is the case, their punishment should be restricted to that provided by law, and the law should be specific. Assuming that antitrust law is acceptable in the first place (which I do not think it is) the acceptable remedies would be along the lines of fines and injunctions against the specific things that they are alleged to have done wrong. This attitude that since Microsoft is a monopolist, then the government has the right to do whatever the hell it pleases is nonsense.
1. Require Microsoft to publish complete documentation of all interfaces between software components, all communications protocols, and all file formats.
I see no reason why anyone has a right to know anything about Microsoft's products. The fact that Windows is popular does not make it public domain software, and I see no moral obligation on their part to document or not document any part of it.
2. Require Microsoft to use its patents for defense only, in the field of software. (If they happen to own patents that apply to other fields, those other fields could be included in this requirement, or they could be exempt.)
There is a strong argument to be made against software patents, and I would support revoking all of MS's software patents along with the rest of the industry's patents if it is done in a reasonable way. But until that happens, I see no reason for the courts to make a special exception to Microsoft's lawful property rights. If software patents are bad, the solution is to repeal them, not simply to revoke them if they are "abused." Giving the courts the power to revoke/cripple patents at will is a terrible preceedent.
3. Require Microsoft not to certify any hardware as working with Microsoft software, unless the hardware's complete specifications have been published, so that any programmer can implement software to support the same hardware.
This is perhaps the most ridiculous. For starters, this is a free speech violation, as it prohibits Microsoft from expressing an opinion on the topic. Furthermore, it seems to me that if this were done it would be a simplistic attempt to use the trial to bludgeon hardware manufacturers into building open systems. Open systems are in most cases a good thing, but computer companies have a right to make closed systems as well, and I see no reason to forbid them from getting MS ceritification.
One response I can anticipate: The idea that corporations do not have rights is baloney. Individuals have rights, and corporations are just associations of individuals. If each of Microsoft's shareholders and employees have rights to free speech, property, etc, why would MS not have that right.
I find it amazing the extent to which people are willing to ignore Microsoft's rights simply because they write bad software. There are arguments (I think bad ones) to be made that Microsoft has committed a crime, and should be punished, but if this is the case, their punishment should be restricted to that provided by law, and the law should be specific. Assuming that antitrust law is acceptable in the first place (which I do not think it is) the acceptable remedies would be along the lines of fines and injunctions against the specific things that they are alleged to have done wrong. This attitude that since Microsoft is a monopolist, then the government has the right to do whatever the hell it pleases is nonsense.
1. Require Microsoft to publish complete documentation of all interfaces between software components, all communications protocols, and all file formats.
I see no reason why anyone has a right to know anything about Microsoft's products. The fact that Windows is popular does not make it public domain software, and I see no moral obligation on their part to document or not document any part of it.
2. Require Microsoft to use its patents for defense only, in the field of software. (If they happen to own patents that apply to other fields, those other fields could be included in this requirement, or they could be exempt.)
There is a strong argument to be made against software patents, and I would support revoking all of MS's software patents along with the rest of the industry's patents if it is done in a reasonable way. But until that happens, I see no reason for the courts to make a special exception to Microsoft's lawful property rights. If software patents are bad, the solution is to repeal them, not simply to revoke them if they are "abused." Giving the courts the power to revoke/cripple patents at will is a terrible preceedent.
3. Require Microsoft not to certify any hardware as working with Microsoft software, unless the hardware's complete specifications have been published, so that any programmer can implement software to support the same hardware.
This is perhaps the most ridiculous. For starters, this is a free speech violation, as it prohibits Microsoft from expressing an opinion on the topic. Furthermore, it seems to me that if this were done it would be a simplistic attempt to use the trial to bludgeon hardware manufacturers into building open systems. Open systems are in most cases a good thing, but computer companies have a right to make closed systems as well, and I see no reason to forbid them from getting MS ceritification.
One response I can anticipate: The idea that corporations do not have rights is baloney. Individuals have rights, and corporations are just associations of individuals. If each of Microsoft's shareholders and employees have rights to free speech, property, etc, why would MS not have that right.
Anti-trust laws aim to help competition on the theory that this will help the consumer. As I understand history, the sole reason these laws were created was to help the would be monopolist's customers.
The whole point of the M$ anti-trust trial is to determine wether M$ has an unfair advantage over it's competition in the market place.
No, that isn't the point.
Yes Microsoft is a monopoly. But it isn't illegal to be a monopoly. It is illegal to use monopolistic powers to hurt consumers.
The focus of the trial is to determine whether Microsoft's actions have hurt consumers.
On just that merit I'm not sure if this case is sound.
I never once was prohibited from going to netscape.com and downloading anything. IE never tried to stop me, Microsoft never tried to stop me. Netscape was never prevented from selling/giving its browser away free. I don't see anyone complaing about MSPaint or the Calculator or Wordpad, and these are all bundled with the OS and have commercial equivalents.
All the politics now surrounding this case have mad the whole point totally obscure.
According to my understanding, a user can monitor what APIs are being called by an application. Someone did catch Microsoft Office using secret APIs, but that was in 1991 or something, I have not heard about a similar scandal since.
Contrary to this assertation, one reason Microsoft has gotten into corporations favor is that every product they create has a published API. Real Media has a player, Microsoft has a Media Player SDK. You probably could write a complete application suite on top of the published API for MS Office, and so on.
The only API which I understand is "secret" is the low-level WinNT kernal API. But do any MS user space applications call this API? None that I've heard of.
Many, many software companies write fully functional non-buggy Windows applications. Are they hiring ex-Microsoft employees who snuck documentation out?
Not that I'm not saying MS is not a legal monopoly and shouldn't be penalized. Just the idea that their APIs are some bastion of secrecy (like IBM's were in the 60s) doesn't necessarily hold water.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
1) Netscape doesn't yet have a componentized browser. Other companies such as Lotus, Quicken, and AOL are using the IE component, so the specs may be open enough to reverse engineer (then again, they may not.)
2) There's tons of dohickeys that plug into the Explorer shell. There's also been rip-and-replace alternative shells in the past. What's LiteStep trying to do.
3) Every Windows application manipulates the file associateions, Microsoft or not. It's a operating system design flaw (and one that KDE also seems to have). Look at Macintosh file types for a better implementation.
The big problem with Microsoft's interfaces is not that their secret (although it's conventional wisdom, is it true?), but that by that Microsoft only implements a new API along with a new product. They therefore get the time to market advantage.
As a contrary approach, look at Apple OpenDoc. They released a API, but then refused to use internally at Claris or in the Finder. As a third party vendor, the concern that an API is going to stick around for a long time is certainly valid, and when MS develops something like OLE, at least they use it themselves.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Just as a minor correction, Apple does compete with other Mac developers. Try to buy an iMac without paying the ClarisWorks "tax". They're used to be four or five other "works" packages for the Mac - Apple drove them under.
There's numerous other examples - Final Cut, WebObjects. I think the key is that there's no comprehensive competition like there is with Microsoft. I seriously doubt there is one Windows vendor whose #1 competition is not Microsoft themselves (well, Adobe).
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
I'll tell you -- the MS/Intel PC 99 spec specifically overrides the previous PCI spec. It's now up to the OS to allocate PCI resources, not the BIOS, although companies can chose to have a legacy mode setting.
This, and WinModems, are just the tip of the Iceburg. Microsoft is trying to turn the PC clone into the Windows computer. They've disposed of serveral critical pieces of the IBM PC AT Clone - text mode, ISA slots, and the joystick port.
It's starting to look like a PC99 will get a Windows logo, but won't even boot MS-DOS or any other OS. RMS is right on here - if Microsoft were to get away with this, it would be far worse than things like "secret" DOC file formats.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
I do think MS needs to be dealt with, but I think that RMS is out of line. We don't need to go that far. If MS were split up, such that their applications and operating systems division would be seperate, it would no longer be in the OS companies interest to create secret standards and what not. The current MS API situation is setup to give MS a major leg up in developing applications -- while crushing the competition. It would not help the OS company at all to keep their standards and APIs from developers. They would want to make their OS as competetive as possible with Linux and the like. This means that they'd release the specs openly and document them as best as they know how, such that the best software can be written for their platform. Linux could be at somewhat of a loss in this respect.
The applications division would also want to maximize profits. This means that they'd port their applications to other platforms, where profitable. Linux would most certainly be a candidate. The installation base is certainly large enough to warrant a porting effort.
This being said, I do have a few concerns about splitting up applications and operating system companies out right. While there is clearly a potential for abuse, it is also some what neccessary at certain stages. When a company is first developing a new operating system, say Windows CE, they'd want to make sure that there are some decent, if not 'killer', applications. This in some cases means that you have to allow the company to develop and sell software for their operating system. It might even be wise to allow them a leg up, for a certain period of time. But once the operating system acquires a certain momentum it should have to cut its applications loose. Or at the very least, have some sort of immediate checks on their usage.
I think that everyone is missing the point on complaining that the remedies offered do not address the "aggrieved parties." The whole suit is about Microsoft being a monopoly (which is not in-itself a crime) and using it's monopoly power illegally against the aggrieved parties. Seems to me there are two general "remedies" that can be explored:
1) Make Microsoft an non-monopoly. Do "things" to Microsoft or require them to do things that will remove the monopoly power that they have and make it impossible for them to use that power illegally in the future. RMS' three items seem to prefer this remedy by allowing other competitors greater access to Microsoft's APIs in order to slowly bring "real" competition back to the desktop OS and application market.
2) Punish Microsoft for the things that they have done by fines or retribution to the aggrieved parties and implement a regulatory body to oversee all Microsoft future dealings. This would allow Microsoft to remain a monopoly, but allow the MRC (Microsoft Regulatory Commission) to oversee future business dealings to make sure they don't use their monopoly power illegally in the future.
I believe that everyone (who believes that Microsoft is a monopoly and needs to be dealt with due to their illegal use of that monopoly power) would opt for a remedy of the first ilk rather than the second. The Microsoft monopoly is different than any other monopoly in the past, such as oil companies and telephone, in that it is an "intellectual" monopoly. Past monopolies have been "physical" monopolies, because of the ownership of oil fields or the telephone network. I don't think anyone would wish for the "thought police" that would be required with a #2 like remedy.
Also, you must keep in mind that it is a product based monopoly, but it is non-physical. If someone had a monopoly on cars, you could still buy a car and readily design a car stereo that would compete with the car manufacturers model. That's because it is relatively easy to discern the "interface" required for the car stereo. Software is much different. An application vendor can not readily discern the complete interface to the OS when that OS is developed by a monopoly company like Microsoft. Even if they do provide the "interface" or API details to the OS, there are still "hidden" interfaces that they can use in their app product that the competitor can not. This is why it is important to include the APIs in any remedy. Either that, or you need to hire a load of government programmers to go over each and every Microsoft application to make sure they are not using internal interfaces unfairly against their competition. I don't think anyone wants that either...
Well, that might make a difference if I was the judge. As I am not, I have no obligation to uphold the whole "innocent until proven guilty" routine.
I can form a judgement as early in the process as I want...even before any formal charges are brought. Doesn't mean I am going to be correct in my opinion, but I am entitled to it.
The whole point of the M$ anti-trust trial is to determine wether M$ has an unfair advantage over it's competition in the market place.
Should M$ be proven monopolistic, steps will be required to take away it's unfair advantage, nothing more.
The spectrum of M$ competition ranges from Linux/GNU and BeOS to IBM, AOL and Apple, all employing different business practices. A level playing field is not possible without limiting all competitors to the lowest (least restrictive/competitive) common denominator. We're talking the economic version of Harrison Bergeron here - bad idea.
For Stallman's suggestions to work, and be morally right rather than anti-M$, they would have to be applied to the software industry as a whole. No way in hell will that ever work.
Now, a "world according to Stallman" might be a nice thought exercise, but it would render the computer industry (software, and hardware per item#3) impotent.
Hopefully, regardless of the outcome of the trial, the Fed (global is better) will be forced to re-evaluate the way M$ et al do business. The licensing policies, NDAs, costs, upgrade strategies, etc. are all to be questioned and an upper bound must be defined.
Regulations and restrictions must be industry-wide, not just levied against the most successful of contenders.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
> As for the slavery, it is completely irrelevant,
> and there are so many things about that
> paragraph that are irrelevant that I am not
> going to bother to respond.
Interesting cop out. My question was pointed to determine your ideas of social morality, etc. There are is a small group of individuals would would say that the slavery should be legal, after all, the guy took out the morgage knowing what would happen if he got laid off. It's his fault for not developing enough skills to cope in a difficult world, etc. From what you've said, you seem to be one of them.
I want to know if you're one of those people who basically ascribes to the doctrine that the world doesn't owe anyone a living, so you shouldn't take care of anyone else. Note: I'm not attacking you personally. You're probably a kind, generous person. But the views that you expressed sound like the views of the dog-eat-dog proponent, that is, one who believes that because a dog can eat another dog, and sometimes will, that's a perfectly fine situation.
Most of us believe that some work should be done to make the world a better place. Sure, some people will steal if you let them, so you do your best not to let them.
You see, the problem with microsoft is not that they don't have the "right" to do what they've done. In the Hobbsian sense they have the right to do anything that they can get away with. On the other hand, they don't have the right to do what they've done in the sense of deserving it, or it being morally permissible. Just about all of the incompatabilities between M$ products and the rest of the world are artificial. They're designed into the system to act like a drug - to hook you and make you dependent on them.
Which makes me think of a side note - do you think that narcotics should be regulated? Do you think that crack dealers are simply "good businesmen" (they are selling a product for which there is a large demand)?
Anyhow, the argument against microsoft is that they have no right to compete artificially. Just like it should be illegal for microsoft to compete by filing hundreds of lawsuits against its competitors, or sending them hundreds of pounds of mail every day, or flooding their email box with messages, or ping flooding their competitors websites into oblivion, etc. It should be illegal for them to build addiction devices into their products.
But the problem with us coming to an understanding seems to be that your view of morality is "anything not directly violent is ok". Which works, in a sense. Of course, I can't see how, using that premise, you could support things like the civil rights movement, etc. Why should the government dictate that blacks have to be able to use the same bathrooms in private establishments as whites. Or why should blacks be able to sit in the front of the bus like whites in privately owned buses. Or why shouldn't a company be able to hire only white males solely because they're white males? It's their business if they want to do that.
I'm assuming that you're against equal employment laws, correct? And you believe that child labor should be acceptable because either the kid or his parents should be responsible for the kid. If he wants some extra pocket money, why should someone stop him. And I assume that loansharking should be perfectly legal. And that electricity and water companies should be able to charge whatever they want.
If the water company decided one day that they were going to charge everyone 100% of their assets for a drop of water, that's fine.
And there's nothing wrong with what OPEC did, is there? And I assume that price-fixing should be perfectly legal.
Out of curiosity, since you're dependent on your parents for food etc. in the first X years of your life, do they in effect own you? Should they be able to starve you, etc. if they want? Send you out naked into the snow if they don't want you in their house or wearing their clothes?
What do you propose to restrict? What laws do you say should be on the books?
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
There are lots of monopolies, many of which are strictly controlled. Look at your electric company (depending on where you live). Look at your water company. They're often monopolies, and often very highly regulated. It's not restricted to microsoft, nor was it invented by microsoft. The general principle is that if you can exert undue influence over your market, you're not going to be allowed to.
As far as Microsoft being required to publish specs, there is precident for that, as well. Ever go to the supermarket? Every food item which isn't composed of one thing only (i.e. bananas, apples, slabs of beef) are required, by law, to include both caloric information and the ingredients, listed in order of volume. Shouldn't companies be allowed to put anything they want into the food that they sell and not have to tell us?
Of course not. Why? Because then they place people in danger. If you don't know what you're dealing with, you might take something that you're allergic to. Why should M$ be forced to publish the full version of all their specs? Because without them, they can exert an undue influence on their market. If I write a story in Microsoft Word, I should be able to retrieve it, even if I no longer have Microsoft word. They have no rights to my intellectual property, and no right to keep it from me. By using an undocumented API, they are, in effect, keeping it from me.
Can you come up with a convincing argument for why selling something doesn't inherently imply selling the information on how to use it and interact with it? Can you give a convincing reason why a company should be allowed to make a product which hides my information, or the information that someone else gives to me, in a format that only they can read so that I am forced to pay them for it (without invoking the morality that if I steal from my neighbor but he can't force me to give it back, I should be allowed to keep what I've stolen)?
Think of it this way: do you think that it would be OK if Honda sells you a car, that can only use Honda ExpensoTires, and they're the sole manufacturer of them? And if you only found out about it afterwards (how many software boxes say "This product uses a proprietary format that binds you to our products and doesn't allow interoperability with other people, excepting that they also use this product")?
Out of curiosity, do you believe that slavery should be legal, if, say, people became slaves by selling their freedom rather than being cought or sold by someone else? E.g., Henry takes out a morgage. Henry is then laid off from work, and can't pay his morgage, so the bank reposeses his house. Unfortunately, property has devalued, and the house is only worth 80% of the morgage (and let's not forget interest). So the bank sells henry to pay for his debts. Do you think that this should be legal or illegal. If you think that this should be illegal, how do you reconsile this with your statement that microsoft should be able to do anything that they want, including product dumping, market control through proprietary APIs, etc.
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
And predatory pricing is another aspect of antitrust/pro-competitive legislation. Dumping looks good for the customer in the short term... until every player in the market but one is destroyed, and the victor gains back the revenue they lost during the price war by gouging everybody for the next few years or decades. It happens. I pay "monopoly rent" every time I fly somewhere.
The other way to hold onto a monopoly (assuming you already have one, which you do if you start out with one) is to seal up your market tight as a drum and use every means at your disposal to prevent any other party from challenging it. This takes lots of extra resources, which you pay for with the extra income you get from your monopoly rents.
Once you get the technique down, then you extend your grasp a little bit at a time until, eventually, you are more of an economic force of nature than a commercial entity. You are the friction in every financial transaction, and the "lost" energy goes right into your pocket. Nice work if you can get it, and you don't have to worry about making your customers happy.
Oh, never mind, you're absolutely right. All I'm saying is, using every trick in the book (legal or otherwise, including stealing and extortion) to smash potential competition constitutes "very specialized cases".
I don't have answers to all of your quesions, but...
When a company sells me a product for less than it costs them to make it, just long enough to drive competitors out of my market, I call that predatory pricing. If a company sells a product for less than it costs their competitor to make it, that's hardball competition.
When potential competitors know you can outlast them, and are willing to do it as often as neccesary, they won't even mount a challenge. Then you get to set and keep your high prices.
It doesn't take 100% market share to be a monopoly, either. There's a world of difference between 90% market share and 50% share.
At the risk of trying to continue an already-dead thread...
BinaryBits' basic assertion that consumers have a choice not to use MS products is, in my experience, false. Just because other products exist that perform a similar function does not necessarily mean that using those competing products is really an option. In my interactions with customers, it is typically agreed that all files exchanged shall conform to the customer's corporate standard. This standard is invariably the MS Office suite, often the newest version.
In these situations, "choice" really isn't there. The economic need to have customers forces me to use MS Office.
In general, in a competitive situation, I respect the idea that companies keep secrets to maintain a competitive edge. I dislike the notion of secret interfaces and APIs intensely, but can't think of a good reason for forbidding them in normal circumstances.
Windows is not a normal circumstance. For all practical purposes, it is the only game in town. You cannot do business (computationally speaking, duh) in today's world without being able to interoperate with Windows-based systems. Where economics alone don't force that condition, politics help out. Windows is a monopoly.
Given this situation, the usual rules (much as I dislike them anyway) do not apply. Since application developers are essentially forced to develop for Windows, MS cannot be permitted to keep any secrets in the OS APIs. That would give MS's application developers a huge boost in this game that everyone else is already being forced to play. It's like playing poker against someone who gets to look at all the cards.
If developers had the option of not playing, I would (grudingly) say, fine. But they don't. A large and constantly increasing percentage of potential customers won't even accept a compatible product that works on another OS. It's Windows or nothing. To decide to develop for a non-Windows platform is, in many fields, to decide not to do business.
Given this reality, it is necessary to force the monopoly player (MS) to fully publish and share all of their platform (OS) APIs with the rest of the application developers as freely as they do with their own. This is the only measure that can prevent the monopoly player from steamrollering every market they wish to.
If you think it's fine for one giant conglomerate to control the whole market, great. Many people don't seem to think monopolies hurt them. I do. The US government seems to agree. Look at some markets that are controlled by giant, monopolistic conglomerates and tell me how much better they are than competitive ones. Tell me how much better the consumer is served. Tell me how much less the customer gets reamed by monopolies than competitive companies.
i haven't seen a discussion in the comments as good as this one sense the early days of usenet. i think the scoring thing is working!
Synergies are basically awesome, and they're even better when you leverage them. -PA
shit... "since"
Synergies are basically awesome, and they're even better when you leverage them. -PA
RMS suggestion #1: apple already follows #1. apple generally is very open about usage of all APIs and everything they have. This is because they do not compete directly with their developers.
If they are closed about anything it is the hardware, and it is usually because the specific hardware they won't explain is about to be changed, and thus they don't want anyone to depend on what might change.
apple doesn't count because it is not in their best interests to be closed up like microsoft is. they _want_ developers. they _need_ developers. they want to be kind to them, and if they refused to explain all their software it wouldn't help them. it would hurt them.
#2: similar case to #1 but not quite.
#3: does not apply. First off apple creates its own hardware, unlike MS, and therefore really has a right to dictate what its own hardware does. Secondly they don't "certify" anything. they just "refuse to support" certain things. They're a special case. This is probably not a good thing, but that's an argument for another day.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
I think it's the only true way to level the playing field, and it still allows for MS to be the first/best implementer of an API or format. Just because Microsoft no longer holds all the cards does not mean they wont have a winnning hand. It does mean they'll play a fair game though.
Also, these kinds of regulations should be required for ALL software. Besides making competion between vendors more fair, it also sets up a framework that can be binding in some way. A company can guarantee they they conform to a known standard. A company can guarantee that their software functions in a known configuration Setting those standards is the first step to being able to guarantee quality of product in the IT world. This kind of guarantee is something we will eventually all need since technology has taken on such an important role.
My $.02
-Rich
In other words, "now that you've won, abandon the logic that won you the suit and help out Open Source advocates instead."
I don't think so. Yes, RMS's idea of publishing all the interface specs helps open source software. It also helps closed-source software as well, and relates directly to the browser-integration question.
Netscape's ( and other companies' ) complaint is that Microsoft can do things with their browser that everyone else is prevented or prohibited from doing. If the spec for the interface between IE and the OS is published completely, then it becomes possible for any browser to do everything IE does and to become indistinguishable from IE as far as the OS is concerned. This directly addresses the complaint, by making it possible for Netscape to compete on an even playing field with IE. Whether Netscape actually chooses to do so is another question, but if they don't it's not because they can't.
Actually, it would be a good legal principle that company A cannot, as a condition of licensing company B to distribute A's product, restrict which other companies B can enter into agreements with, restrict or dictate the terms of those agreements, or include in their agreement penalties for B entering into an agreement with another company unless that other agreement caused B to violate their existing agreement with A.
Tell me. A Linux user on my ISP is having problems with a 3Com 905B network card. After using Windows, it requires a power-cycle to work under Linux. The problem was finally traced to the D3-cold problem with PCI cards. Apparently MS has enough clout to get BIOS makers to actually change the way their PCI BIOS works so that, instead of the BIOS allocating resources per the PCI spec, the card is left disabled and it's up to the OS to enable it and allocate resources. Except for boot devices and sound cards, that is. Those do get handled by the BIOS. Boot devices should be obvious, and windows can't allocate the resources for sound cards. convenient that those are the only two exceptions, neh?
Uhm, the whole purpose of the anti-trust trial is to help competitors who have been harmed by unfair business practices, not to help consumers. Hence, forcing opening of the APIs would be a perfectly logical thing to include.
Forcing hardware vendors to open specs in order to be Microsoft-certified has nothing to do with Microsoft, unless Microsoft has been pressuring companies not to release specs (one charge I haven't heard yet).
Restricting use of patents is a preemptive measure, as I haven't seen Microsoft abusing patents yet.
You don't seem to understand antitrust law, or you do and don't agree with it's purpose.
The general purpose of antitrust law is not to punish wrongdoing. It's, in effect, to punish success. This sounds stupid, I know, but let me explain.
Most (certainly not all) of America's laws are based on a balance of personal liberty and promoting capitalism. Most of the laws we have work well doing both at the same time, since in a competetive market (which is most of them), the best way to promote capitalism is to do nothing at all.
But sometimes monopolies form, and we have to have special rules in this case. When mopolies form, everyone is worse off except for the person who owns the monopoly. With a normal business, the business doing better is good for everyone, consumer and producer alike. But monopolies are bad for consumers, because they result in under-production and over-pricing.
That's why we have antitrust laws. Really, the first anti-trust laws were sponsored by big business to stamp out labor unions, but now they're supposed to serve a good pupose. I like the example of AT&T. People say Microsoft has made computers easier to use, so we should leave them alone. Well, AT&T made telephones much more common than they were before AT&T. But after a while, they were broken up, and we're better off now (except for that slamming stuff). AT&T didn't really do anything wrong, but they were a monopoly, and thus bad for society. So they were broken up.
Now Microsoft. Yes, Microsoft should be "disintegrated" (for lack of a better word) because they are a monopoly. But they should be punished because of the illegal and immoral things they have done in addition to being a monopoly.
He states (and I'm paraphrasing from memory) that his measures will "allow free software offerings to compete with Microsoft's products." The crucial part of this is that he specifies free software.
The DOJ doesn't, and shouldn't, care if free software specifically can compete. Their job, and their goal, is to enable competition. This competition can just as easily be another commercial entity as it can the FSF. To focus specifically on free software would be counter to the mandate they have; they need to find the most general solution, not one specific to any segment of the industry.
(Note that I'm not saying that free software is bad, unimportant, or that I don't want it to succeed. I'm just observing that it doesn't merit any particular special privelege in the eyes of the DOJ.)
-Snibor Eoj
Here's a simple metric to use: when one company controls the vast majority of the supply lines for an essential product class, they've got a legally-controllable monopoly. It doesn't matter whether it's oil or steel or phone calls or software. Once that point is reached, competition will inevitably decrease and the consumer will suffer, either from increased prices or stagnant product. Breaking up these logjams (and preventing companies from abusing the control of them) is the purpose of anti-trust laws.
Sure there are other options for operating systems, and there are a few ways to get PCs without MS OSes (or MS applications, like MSIE and Office). But they impose a severe hardship on people (don't tell me about the tiny companies that sell Linux PCs. The average person cannot find these companies).
MS acquired control over the distribution channel through mostly legal means (pending the Caldera lawsuit, where it appears that MS committed fraud to imply that a competitor's product wouldn't work when in fact it did). That's not the problem. The problem is that MS then ABUSED that distribution chanel ownership to kill Netscape, and tried to do the same with QuickTime and various other technologies. This hurt the consumer by limiting their choices.
Now, how do you remove MS' control? There are a few options. One is to allow multiple people to sell the same product. That would involve taking MS' property away, which is a bit problematic. Forcing MS to just publish the APIs for its product, however, would allow other companies the chance to produce their own implementations.
I can't seriously accept any argument that an API is property. It's an alphabet, which the Supreme Court has already ruled can't be protected (Intel/AMD lawsuits). Or, you could look at it as "look and feel." If Apple can't prevent companies from making Mac-like interfaces, then APIs aren't ownable.
Open APIs don't just benefit OS cloners. They also benefits app makers. MS apps always have an inside track when it comes to working well with Windows. This has been known for a long time. If MS can't have secret API for Word, the quality of other word processors is going to increase.
Whether or not you believe in anti-trust laws is irrelevant to the case; they are the law of the land. Has MS violated them? You bet your sweet bippie they have. Opening up APIs is the best way to level the playing field.
-jon
Remember Amalek.
Maybe it's my lack of training, but I think a capitalist pundit would think what is good for competition is good for consumers. Prices are kept in check when competition sufficiently increases, right?
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security
Point 1 is a decent remedy for the Microsoft problem. It would certainly level the playing field for competitors in application software. In fact, I feel this should be the LAW for any and all OS vendors.
;-)
What I can't see is how it would _help_ other OS vendors any. It sure would help the Wine project immensely though
2 would make Microsoft's software patents effectively meaningless. The only thing that would happen is that other software companies can't patent things that Microsoft has already patented. Instead they would have to go to Microsoft and get the license, which supposedly Microsoft would have to grant. I suppose that's a Good Thing if in fact we (or any other software company for that matter) get to use that code freely.
I guess I feel that software should be copyright(left)ed, not patented. Maybe copyrighting is even a bit much -- after all, all software is is a very large number that when interpreted in a very specific way by a specific machine, does something. Suppose you found a mathematical series that produces numbers that, when interpreted in binary, just happen to be the files necessary to run Word? Not likely, in many lifetimes of the universe, but there's a non-zero chance of it occuring. (In fact, there are trivial ways of doing it with an n-th order polynomial where n is the number of files, but it would probably require using the numbers in question to generate the polynomial -- as in using them as the roots or using them as the values at x=1, x=2, etc.) Of course, with the size of today's software, actually _using_ such a formula if found is another near impossibility...
OK, so that was a pathetic attempt at finding a position on patented software. I guess 2 sounds good in a "Wouldn't that be nice" sort of way, but I don't know if it really _is_ Good & Right.
3 is pretty lame. If Microsoft just stops _certifying_ hardware as MS-Compatible altogether, that doesn't affect hardware vendors any
Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei
And what is stopping someone else to enter the market once you start "gouging" me?
... Any of these niche players will take the opportunity when they start "gouging" and expand their market share.
And what is stopping the near-monopoly from dropping their prices again as soon as you try to "enter the market"? They only have to do it until you're bankrupt.
"Entering a market" isn't free. It takes quite a bit of work to start a business, and usually, it takes money. Assuming you're not a bored billionaire, you'll probably have to borrow money to start up. Knowing that your competition can lower prices below the level of making a profit would make me very reluctant to loan you any money.
Really? That is guaranteed to happen? You sound awfully cock-sure about this.
Remember also that demand is elastic. I will have to sell a lot of stuff below cost to drive my competition out of business, and then no one will want to buy from me once I drive prices up.
And a company like Microsoft can sell a lot of stuff below cost. Below cost? They're giving Internet Explorer away for free, for heaven's sake! Do you think their development costs were zero?
So, Wal-mart or Microsoft or whomever gets their near-monopoly. They raise prices; you say that no one will want to buy from them. So what? What choice do people have? Once a competator comes along, and people do have a choice, they just lower prices again to drive them out of business.
It's not really that hard to see why this sort of thing is illegal.
There is also the issue of definition: at what point does fair competition become "predatory pricing?" In practice, it means pretty much whatever the judge involved says it means, which is very bad law.
No, it really not that fuzzy. If you are dumping your product into a market for less that in costs you to provide that product, then it's illegal. For good reason.
Microsoft forfeited its rights when it violated anti-trust laws and reneged on the consent decrees it had already signed.
Assuming, of course, that the judge finds that it did so (which it looks like he will).
It's just the same as with individual criminals - they forfeit certain rights when they commit the crime (when they're convicted).
-- Alastair
See AT&T, telephone monopoly thereof, and Judge Greene's decision.
The goverment giveth (rights associated with incorporation), the government can taketh away.
And some persistent grumbling to the contrary, the breakup of AT&T did do wonders for the overall phone industry.
-- Alastair
(Boy, the Microsoft apologists are really out in force today. MS must really be getting nervous about something. But to the main point...)
Will this new regulating body only apply to Microsoft, or will it apply to the entire industry?
Microsoft only. And it's more likely to be just the Judge (and the DOJ) than some new "regulating body".
Again, look at the Judge Greene break up of the AT&T monopoly. The "baby bells" that were spun off from AT&T (also known as RBOCs - Regional Bell Operating Companies - such as US West, NYNEX, Southwest Bell Telephone, etc.) were (and still are, to a degree) subject to operating within a well-defined set of guidelines established by, and periodically reviewed by, Judge Green. Other telcos, whether long-distance (MCI, Sprint, etc) or local telcos that were never part of AT&T (eg LCTX in east Texas, various others) were/are not subject to that regulation. (But are still subject to FCC regs).
Compliance to the Judge Greene stuff is taken very seriously by the baby bells, because they can be hit by serious fines/other penalties if not. (And their competitors will be very quick to hold their feet to the fire.) All employees and contractors (at least at the baby bell I did some work for) are required to undergo a "compliance training" course to ensure they know what is required of them, what they are and are not allowed to do in that context.
So a regulatory solution that applies only to Microsoft (and baby Microsofts, if split up) would work just fine and is precedented. The rest of the software industry, proprietary and free alike, would be utterly unaffected. Except perhaps in a positive manner.
-- Alastair
OK, so microsoft gained an enormous profit by doing illegal things, and as a result, the state has a right to take away their ability to do so. So far so good.
But isn't there a danger that by over-regulating microsoft, what would really be accomplished is a sort of affirmative action for microsoft competitors? In the end, how is requiring MS to not use software patents in the fashion that other companies are allowed to (for example) any different than Germany prohibiting neo-nazi parties, or some university establishing a quota for under-represented minorities?
Whatever happens to microsoft should be something which levels the playing field, not something that creates a situation where microsoft is the victim of legal discrimination just because we don't like them.
The problem with requiring MS to release documentation on its interfaces is that it
assumes that said documentation exists
in a meaningful form.
Now, I'm as anti-microsoft as the next guy.
But I tend to believe in stupidity as a side
effect of human effort rather than actual
malice, in most cases; and I think it's more
likely that MS releases undocumented and
incompatible interfaces because the teams
responsible for developing them didn't
thoroughly document them --- they're incompatible
because different teams within the company didn't
know what each other were doing.
This creates an image of MS as being a massive
bureaucracy --- like if the federal government
were responsible for developing software, only
it figured out it had to do it fast, so it
decided to do the paperwork later, and never
got around to it.
#1: release APIs
This might be possible if all APIs were well documented in the first place, but who says they are? Most of you who develop must realize that development and documentation proceed at different paces, with the former usually outpacing the latter by a longshot.
#2: Can't release anything without first (or simultaneously) releasing specs
..And you thought MS products were late to ship now?? BTW, what about those divisions of MS where such a thing simply isn't relevant (games division, etc)? Really, this goes right along with #1. If #1 is OK (and it might be) then there's nothing to hold back #2.
#3: Can't certify products as "MS approved"
OK, then how about "Bill Gates approved"? Or, "this is known to probably work OK with Windows"? What stops MS from coming up with some other catchy slogan? I wonder how much it really means to the average consumer that their program is "certified for windows" rather that just "made to work with windows". I'm guessing that such a restriction accomplishes nothing at all.
Overall, I applaud RMS for coming up with some good ideas for suitable punishment for MS but I think they are just that - ideas. They still need to be refined before they could seriously be considered.
"As long as he doesn't make everyone call it GNU/Windows" -- anonymous coworker. (But it shows how RMS manages to lose respect from otherwise open-minded people through his rediculous adamance)
I'm not an economist, but:
Microsoft should be left alone to operate as it wishes, however its fraudulent practices must end. The issue isn't whether Microsoft has a monopoly on certain software, it is that it employs certain fraudlent practices to bring a product to market that is seemingly better than the competition. Granted, anyone that markets a product will claim that it is "the best", but noone has the right to claim that their product fufills a need when it clearly doesn't.
For example: the practice of announcing Vaporware is a fraudulent scheme. Leveraging their market presence, Microsoft would announce products (MS-DOS 5.0) that weren't under development to dissuade OEM's from purchasing products from other software companies. This is fraudulent.
Another fraudulent practice was to create misleading error messages designed to discourage use of other products. If you purchase a product that is designed to tell you something is wrong (my old Chrysler Laser did this), you would have a reasonable expectation that the errors given were not lies. This practice is fraudulent.
The practice of charging for bug fixes ("to fix this problem, you must upgrade")is another fraudulent device. What would happen if Chrysler charged to fix a recall?
The list goes on.
I believe that a breakup of Microsoft would only speed up the inevitable anyhow. Left to it's own devices, and assuming they stopped their fraudulent practices, Microsoft would probably have failed to maintain its monopoly in the coming years.
Of course, I could be wrong.
It is important to remember what Microsoft is actually being charged with here. The brunt of the case is about Microsoft illegally tying the browser into the operating system, and the exclusive contracts with OEMs. Any remedies will have to address this issue. The DoJ can't implement remedies that don't directly relate to the case.
It seems to me that RMS is only looking for ways to help the free software and open source movements. Although I agree that these methods would go a long way to opening the door for some compeditors (ie Linux), I don't think they really relate to the DoJ's case.
How do patents relate to tying a browser into an operating system?
How would Hardware specs restrict Microsoft from making exclusive contracts with OEMs
How do documented interfaces, communications protocols, and formats help either of these problems?
Although I think these remedies would be great for the free software/open source movements, I do not think that they directly apply to the case at hand...
If I'm missing something crucial here, please enlighten me
Microsoft's rights? The first amendment grants us the right to bear firearms. If you kill people with guns, the government can take those rights away from that particular individual. Microsoft has not acted responsibly, and when that occurs, and the defendant is proven guilty, the government has the right to take preventative measures.
The government does not have the right to confine people, but do you disagree it should be able to jail the aforementioned gun-weilder?
I don't see how it could _not_ be within the government's rights to prevent any wrongdoings Microsoft is proven guilty of. The question is simply how to ensure the pattern of malicious business practices is broken. If the government _ever_ told me it didn't have the rights to prevent this harm to the general public of the country (indeed, the world in this case), I would then propose that such a government is useless.
Frankly, if Microsoft is proven guilty in this trial, which is a fair one, they have no rights. Any measure which would remunerate the damaged parties is acceptable.
Keep the freedom to vote.
One response I can anticipate: The idea that corporations do not have rights is baloney. Individuals have rights, and corporations are just associations of individuals. If each of Microsoft's shareholders and employees have rights to free speech, property, etc, why would MS not have that right.
I would argue that you cannot posses moral rights unless you have moral responsibilities. Under United States law, shareholders in a coporation are protected against many forms of legal liability if that corporation does something wrong.
Since Microsoft's shareholders have been give partial legal exemption from the consequences of Microsoft's actions, Microsoft cannot "inherit" all of their rights.
Asking for Microsoft to have all the rights possesed by its shareholders without making the shareholders take responsibility for Microsoft is morally inconsistent.
(This isn't academic--remember, the fines for anti-competitive practices are often three times the amount of money obtained illegally. Some studies show the Microsoft may have gained $10 billion dollars through monopoly pricing. They have $17 billion dollars in liquid assets. This means that Microsoft could hypothetically be $13 billion short (excluding their non-liquid assets).
If it weren't for limited liability, Microsoft shareholders would be responsible for that $13 billion. As it is, Microsoft would just go bankrupt in this scenario, and the shareholders would loose nothing but their Microsoft stock. So you see, they're really not responsible for Microsoft's actions.)
If you look back at some other companies, like IBM, they were slapped pretty hard and they never even got convicted! For 35 years IBM was limited in how they could discuss products, when they could announce or discuss future products, how they could charge for service, all sorts of things. Their hands were tied in ways that allowed MS to get to where they are (can you imagine being FUDed by MS and being legally bound from responding? That was IBM in the early 90s. MS is announcing vaporware versions of windows that were 3 years away and IBM couldn't announce a product until 90 days before it shipped and they paid a fine if they missed the ship date.) There is more than enough precedence to take action against MS.
Being against anti-trust law is an entirely different matter. Your stance on the law shouldn't be an issue at this point.
This is my signature. There are many signatures like it but this one is mine..
My only concerns are that the documentation probably doesn't exist for a lot of products and would have to be created in a timely manner (that being a concept MS hasn't always understood.) Source code should be an acceptable substitute.
I also think some sort of review process is needed, releasing specs doesn't do a lot of good if MS releases false specs. Then by the time developers can accuse them and notify the regulators or judge MS has had a product in the market for a considerable amount of time. Say MS chooses not to produce such a spec for a product and then goes on to release the product. You or I accuse them of not releasing the spec, lawyers and judges slowly mobilize and eventually tell them they have to do it. Does the product get pulled off the shevles until the spec is ready or are they allowed to sell it for a year and a half while they produce specs? Do they just pay a fine? When IBM was making OS/2 2.0 the problem wasn't so much that they couldn't get API specs but that MS changed them on a monthly basis so that IBM was always left scrambling behind. THey could still use that tactic.
A provision should be made that the hardware interfaces and MS's software documentation need to be made freely available on the internet, just making it "available" isn't good enough because I don't think you'll see too many linux kernel hackers shelling out $10,000 for the specs on some piece of hardware. This is good for hardware companies even though a few don't want to admit it.
I am also a bit concerned that the hardware stipulation, while the best and most beneficial for GNU/Linux, could possibly hurt other companies which might make it unacceptable. For example winmodems and winprinters are by definition "Windows Compatible and certified" but the hardware has a secret interface which belongs to the hardware vendor. Would these vendors be forced to change their product names or to release the specs to their product? Or would they just become confusion for the consumers? Winprinters that aren't "Windows Certified."
Compared to some of the other ideas I have heard, these sound the most fair to MS. MS is still in full control of what the put into their products, how they price their products, who they collaborate with, they aren't forced to do anything other than provide information and they aren't structurally changed.
I also don't think that these ideas are bad because of the way they benefit free software. In the OS world, MS has pretty much driven off their major commercial competitors. There isn't really a good way to introduce parity in that market without benefiting free software.
Breaking MS up into separate divisions might not help or change anything. Breaking them up in to several separate versions of the same company ("baby bills") may not change anything (I can't think of a compelling reason for one office provider to break compatibility with another office provider or to make their product much different...) it would just confuse the customers by creating different versions of the same products. Forcing them to Opensource their code is a very harsh punishment, depending upon how it is licensed. Forcing them to public domain their code is very harsh, that would almost take away their ability to compete.
Publishing full APIs and specs could also benefit MS. Devleopers will be less likely to leave their platform if MS gives them complete specs. It would increase the rift in documentation between MS and free software, which is going to become a bigger blackeye for GNU/Linux as it is.. It could also enable developers to treat many of MS's application components as reusable components for their own software which could make for very competitive products from 3rd party vendors that are all tied to windows.
This is my signature. There are many signatures like it but this one is mine..
Apple and Be publish pretty darn comprehensive API specifications. What is the parallel?
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
And since what constitutes a crime is so vague, it is next to impossible to defend themselves. They are essentially required to prove that they did not attempt to reduce the market share of their competitors in "unfair" ways.
Much in the same way anyone even accused of having drugs must prove they don't. In that particular section of criminal law, the burden of proof seems to be on the accused rather then the accusor. However, even if it is still a bad law, it must be enforced. Work to change bad laws, don't complain when they're used.
When I was able to do my own spam-armoring, you got a chance to email me. Now you can only hope I see your reply.
Like everyone has been saying, the first point RMS makes has a lot of merit.
The thing he seems to be emphasizing is, the software Microsoft provides doesn't need to be free, or open source... it just needs specs so that anyone who wants to try to integrate with it or compete against it has a fair chance.
On to the second point. Patents. Patents, trademarks, copyright. It's all law, it's all foreign to me. I think that our society needs patents and the protection they provide, the pool of patents RMS suggests sounds more like a socialistic knowledge pool than anything resembling the patent system we have today. But then, this is the field of software and patents were originated in the times of mechanized inventions.
In the main, he is correct. It does no good to slap the company on the collective wrist and not do something about the patents, because that is a large reason they can maintain a monopoly. The question is, where do you draw the line? Isn't that always the question?
Last, point three. Really, this one follows from one, just going further by intruding into the realm of hardware. But, if the software interfaces are already going to be all documented, wouldn't that include drivers? I'm not sure why RMS thinks it's necessary to withhold certification. It'd be helpful if someone explained that last part.
I don't know how much they get. If you follow the link at the top of the article though, the one marked with something like: "Click here to read more about computer companies philanthropy", they mention in that article that the CRC is one of the organizations that MS gives to. It's in the section where they profile the corporate giving of various companies. They lament the fact that more conservative organizations don't get MS money.
It's a really revealing article to read as far as characterizing the CRC goes. Apparantly they exist to study philanthropy, but they have some rather extreme, in my opinion, ideas about how it should be used. Since one of there main complaints is that they think that companies should tie in philanthropy with their marketing and products, they must really love Microsoft. After all, a lot of Microsoft's gift giving seems to consist of MS software rather than actual money. Thier philanthropy also includes a lot of marketing. For instance, most gifts of software to schools come with strings attached, like not letting the school use anything else. I've also heard all sorts of things about them essentially bribing computer science professors to say good things about their software. All of the money they spend on that sort of stuff surely goes under the heading of donations when they file tax returns.
Of course all the ideas are great. I'm just not sure that #3 isn't a bit off the end tho, realistically.
quux26
My
Quux26
www.crashspace.net
Someone wrote: You are basically arguing that Microsoft should get a slap on the wrist and be sent on its way.
You responded: To be honest, yes, that is what I think should happen--because I don't think they have done anything wrong.
Now that we're at least on the right subject (instead of makin it a "crappy software" issue), I'm not sure how you can come to this conclusion. I'd like for you to break down the governments case and show how what MS has done is not unfair. This, I would find incredibly interesting.
My
Quux26
www.crashspace.net
tcharron wrote: "I have to say that point 1 a VERY good one. I feel points 2 and 3 are in there to artificially help the free software movement and NOT to help solve the Microsoft dilemma."
Helping the free software movement will (by default) benefit consumers.
Quux26
My
Quux26
www.crashspace.net
While you do make some valid points under normal circumstances, you're entirely missing the point that Microsoft has gained an enormous advantage by doing illegal things. This has resulted in profit not only for itself, but taken profit away from other businesses.
DrDOS is only one example. It could be argued that everything that MS is is due to their using illegal tactics and is therefore forfeit.
Your argument is a bit like saying that since a person is a human being, when they break the law they can't be sent to jail because then they lose their freedom, their friends, etc. When MS breaks the law, they have to be punished in a way that is commensurate to the harm done. If you want to argue that Stallman is going overboard and is being excessive, fine. But you're fundamentally misunderstanding the governments case here.
My $.02
Quux26
My
Quux26
www.crashspace.net
--
--
Just as a mental exercise, replace MS with Apple.
Seriously.
This doesn't make much sense. If MS can only
defend patent infringement suits with their patents, why would they ever register patents?
When you register a patent you are telling the
whole world exactly how to accomplish what it
is you are doing. To cripple MS in their use of
patents would be to give away their algorithms,
if not their source code.
I understand RMS doesn't like patents and he might
think that this would be a good way of treating
MS's patents, but the chances are the court would
only implement his scheme for future patents,
and if so, MS would not get any future patents
because it clearly would not be in their interest
to do so.
So first, I think MS should be fined a sufficient amount to make them think twice before trying their tricks again.
Second, MS's unfair practices seem to be mainly focused on leveraging their OS advantage. They should open up (and clean up) two things: pricing of their OS and a specification of the API. That is, everybody gets the same price, allowing discounts for volume. The spec should include at the very least a full set of the function calls and documentation and examples of their behavior. A technically-capable independent party should be assigned to ensure compliance (backed up by fines for noncompliance).
Man, I need to do a prejudice-check. I was expecting unrealistic, excessive penalties just because they're Microsoft (and, admittedly, because RMS wrote it).
/dev/null, but kudos anyway to RMS.
What I read was more fair, reasonable, and productive than anything I've heard proposed so far. I think he cut right to the heart of (one reason) why many Free Software advocates hate Microsoft -- "hidden stuff" used for unfair advantage.
Not that my opinion is worth
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
>>1. Require Microsoft to publish complete documentation of all interfaces between software components, all communications protocols, and all file formats.
If Microsoft, why not Apple or Be? Because they don't currently have a monopoly? Will there be some level of marketshare at which we will require a company to start publishing all of their interfaces?
Most folks don't know how much control MS has over PC hardware - I know I didn't until I ran software for Dell's laptop div. for a while. MS pretty much completely dictates not only what hardware can (or must) do, but also how it must do it. Check out the PC9x requirements for an eye-opener: http://www.microsoft.com/hwdev/ If OEMs don't meet these requirements, they pay *much* more for the OS - enough that they're not viable competitors!
I can tell you the h/w vendors are as frustrated by MS' attitude as any of us - Win98 broke so much that almost every laptop mfr. had to do *major* BIOS rewrites just to work around the bugs. ACPI is especially problematic: code that worked perfectly with the NT implementaiton of ACPI (which is written according to the spec), would not work at all with W98 ACPI (which appears to have been written by CS 102 students.)
One good way of reforming MS would be to make them conform to their own Windows software requirements: In order to get the Windows software approval seal from MS, other vendors must pass comaptibility/capability tests, which include an uninstallability component that no MS product I know of could pass. (You'll note that MS products do NOT carry this seal!) I'd be happy if I could just actually uninstall IEx, mediaplayer, Outlook, etc. cleanly as a starting place: MS software is like Herpes - once you've got it, you've got it for life. Microsoft's near-total control of both what future PCs must do (implement MS-hooked function, their way) and how they must do that (through MS-defined calls/APIs) is one of the most important and most overlooked aspects of the entire anti-trust investigation.
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
I'm surprised that Redmond hasn't pointed this out to the press. They've tried every other angle.
MICROSOFT: FREE SOFTWARE CAN'T COMPETE
"Look At The Stupid Gnu," Snorts Top Exec
REDMOND, WA (UPI) - In its latest no-holds-barred assault on the open-source software (OSS) community, Microsoft executives held the logo of the Free Software Foundation up to ridicule. Calling it "proof that free software is nothing more than a passing curiosity," the Redmond-based company pulled no punches in its critique of the animal that many people view as synonymous with this radical software movement.
"Look at it," said Microsoft bigwig Ed Muth. "It looks like the work of a third grader wacked out on Thorazine."
Embattled Microsoft chairman Bill Gates, in an interview on ZDTV, echoed Muth's sentiments. "It never ceases to amaze me," mused Gates, "that people would trust their mission-critical systems to software that sports such a cruddy-looking logo. If you want to trust your Web commerce to a goat, then by all means, go right ahead. On the other hand, if you want to run a real system, complete with talking paperclips and the prettiest dialog boxes this side of the Potomac, give us a jingle. Operators are standing by."
These sentiments echo Gates' earlier comments. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Gates was quoted as saying: "People need to understand that we can do things that these pinko OSS commies can't. We've got a big R&D budget; they don't. Large companies such as ours are far more capable of producing attractive and pleasing logos than you would get from some long-hair university environment. It all boils down to the ability to compete, and they simply can't."
Gates also lambasted the familiar BSD logo. "The red devil," he explained, "is a thinly-veiled reference to Communism. Not only that, it just looks stupid. Nowhere in the free software community will you find a logo as great as our Windows logo; we spent nearly two million dollars on aesthetic engineering, and put the remaining $20,000 into software testing. The results are clear. OSS is way behind. My advice to those who are contemplating jumping on the bandwagon: Don't. Stick with the guys with the pretty logos. You'll be glad you did."
The following "article" was satire and should not have been read by any lifeless legal types.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
I think this is a meaningless metric. Two counterexamples are utilities and MS:
I don't have a choice about who provides my local phone service (as far as I can tell), and I don't particularly like my local phone provider (haven't liked any of the others I tried when I lived in other places, either). Yet each local phone company is allowed to keep it's monopoly (as are some other utilities), in part b/c it's considered to be a 'natural monopoly' (It's more efficient to have a single pipe leading to your house, rather than 4 & picking which one you'll use). These monopolies are tolerated, yet they clearly have (almost) nothing to do with consumer choice.
Further, I would argue (in the case of most non-utilities) that there isn't any way to prove that consumers haven't overwhelmingly choosen the monopolist. In theory, everyone could ditch their Wintel boxes & buy Macs within, say, 4 years. Since everyone continues to buy Wintel, MS's monopoly is clearly because of 'overwhelming consumer choice'.
--Mike
Anything posted is my personal opinion, and not to be taken as anyone else's
MS is getting bludgeoned in the suit on the basis of anticompetitive practices agains *other* closed-source vendors. But RMS's whole argument seems to rest on the sentence:
"The latter would mainly help others proprietary application developers compete, which would only offer users alternative ways to let go of their freedom."
In other words, "now that you've won, abandon the logic that won you the suit and help out Open Source advocates instead."
Its a nice idea, I'll grant him that. But I don't think the judge can explore remedies that aren't geared towards helping out the aggrieved parties in the lawsuit.