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)
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.
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