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)
Some MS apologist or possibly paid spin doctor wrote:
-----
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.
-----
I think MS has broken many laws with reckless abandon. Particularly intellectual property rights they always hide behind and believe that they (MS) are the only people on earth who are allowed to enjoy them. I may not agree with the implementation of US antitrust law but it's intent is valid and the legal remedies available (regardless of fashionable lassie-fare) to the attorney general are UNLIMITED as a matter of law. The MS anti trust case is one where that unlimited power should be exercised.
-----
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.
-----
This does not deny MS any right or expose their intellectual property. This merle asks that full API be made public. If people have to compete in the application area with MS on MS's turf it is nice to actually have concrete standards. If competitors have to be interoperable with dominant MONOPOLY OS it is only reasonable that that expectation be possible. It's not asking for the source code to MS word, it is simply asking what the fuck is in a word file. Had we had this maybe there would have been no GUID fiasco, you might also still have a real choice for a business word processor. This is the most reasonable proposal offered I'm glad it's on the table.
------
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.
------
Software patents are already terribly crippled. Copyright applies much better to software and most is covered under copyright, GNU included. What are companies like MS trying to do when they try to Patent the way software works not just their specific implementation. Should I not be allowed to implement W3's standard for cascading style sheets because MS filed a patent behind everyone's back?
-----
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.
-----
This one is limited in scope to advancing free software and not really addressing the huge problem that is MS. However, it does benefit consumers to have the guts of their system documented and that documentation available to developers.
As for corporations not having rights... they don't have individual rights. They don't. Every shareholder was supposed to not be liable for the companies actions and in turn the company was taxed as a corporation (how many modern companies try to worm their way out of how many taxes?) the companies executives don't enjoy that privilege, they are liable for their actions and the things they say. it's not free speech it's responsible speech and some companies need to return to it! I can not believe that any companies even one as large as MS, have rights that trump the rights of the individual. They shouldn't, I have free speech and I can say Microsoft SUCKS and ask you where you want to go after you've ditched windows and no company lawyer can reign in my free speech because it might just violate a trademark!
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.