This is exactly what's wrong with our education system. The computer teacher said in an email to the reporter, "If [the students] are allowed to experiment and do things on the computers that the teachers have not specifically given them permission to do, we would never get any computer education accomplished." Experimentation *is* a form of education, arguably the most effective form. If I had a student in her class, I would demand her resignation.
I am writing in regards to the Tunney Act public comment period on the proposed Microsoft antitrust settlement.
The proposed settlement will not prevent Microsoft from maintaining its monopoly in the computer industry. The findings of fact clearly described a pattern of corporate behavior that evidenced little respect for antitrust law or public sentiment. Though the proposed remedies themselves may be adequate, the enforcement measures will not provide enough incentive for Microsoft to fundamentally alter its behavior. History demonstrates that Microsoft will not alter its behavior unless it is clearly in its competitive interests to do so. The proposed remedies attempt to force Microsoft to change its behavior in order to reduce its power in the market place. This will not succeed.
The only measures that can be effective are those that immediately change the competitive landscape, and then free Microsoft to struggle for power in this new, more level playing field. I agree with the court that a structual remedy is cumbersome and not likely to be effective. A technilogical remedy, with objective, quantifiable measures, is the only remedy that can be both effective and in the public's interest.
The competitive advantages of an operating system monopoly are twofold. First, Microsoft negotiates from a very powerful position with OEMs and ISPs. Second, their application software can be developed with special knowledge of the operating system and (optionally) devivered with the operating system to gain better market penetration. Any remedy must address both of these monopolistic advantages.
While I do not claim to be able to construct a better remedy myself, I think it is clear that any remedy must involve forcing Microsoft to open all of its APIs and file formats. Any time two pieces of MS software communicate out-of-process, the protocol for their communication must be public. Enforcement could come in the form of a court-appointed authority that had the right to demand to see the source code of any MS-published software and compare the documented APIs to the source code. If they were not the same or if the source code is not delivered within a few days, MS should be fined 1/356th of it's profit (this can be calculated after the fact at the end of each quarter) per-day until it satisfies the requirements. This would ensure that the applications of Microsoft's competitors have the same opportunity to succeed on the Windows platform as those of Microsoft itself. Microsoft may maintain its operating systems monopoly, but it will not be able to use to establish new monopolies in other market segments.
Thank you very much for reading and considering my comments.
Regards,
Personal information and summary of industry qualifications
To be overly general, I think that hackers fall, more or less, into one of two categories: Hackers (making something cool happen) and Architects (building something elegant). This may just be my prejudice, but I think there's a general trend for young hackers to start out Hacking. As they get older, some become Architects, and some stay Hackers. I would be interested to hear your perspective on this. Which do you find yourself doing/enjoying more, making cool things happen without much regard for elegance or building elegant structures at the cost of some "coolness"? I realize that everyone falls somewhere in between the two extremes, but which do you feel yourself most aligned to? How has this feeling changed over time for you? Do you think this is a result of your education, resources available to you, your age, or something else? Thanks.
IANAL, and I don't even know any, so I make no claims as to the legal feasibility or implications of the following.
Something like a Patent Sharing Organization might be a viable, market-driven (as opposed to legislated) solution to the patent problem. The only membership requirement for this org would be to allow free use of all one's patents to other members. If such an organization attained a critical mass, being a member (hence having access to a very large selection of patents) would provide a greater competitive advantage than keeping patents to oneself (esp., stupid patents). Sort of GPL/OSS for patents.
Attaining critical mass might be hard. But then, it seems to face many of the same hurdles as the OSS movement, which has obviously overcome them.
There are certainly some issues with this. Some way is needed to allow for legitimate patents, for example. Perhaps, in Internet Time, a six month patent allowance might make sense.
Has anyone tried something like this? Does anyone with legal experience have some insight into the potential problems with such an organization?
They could place some recently dead organic matter in the capsule. Hopefully, those who find it would know about radio carbon dating and date the capsule using whatever calendar they like.
Slashdot Mirror
This is exactly what's wrong with our education system. The computer teacher said in an email to the reporter, "If [the students] are allowed to experiment and do things on the computers that the teachers have not specifically given them permission to do, we would never get any computer education accomplished." Experimentation *is* a form of education, arguably the most effective form. If I had a student in her class, I would demand her resignation.
The proposed settlement will not prevent Microsoft from maintaining its monopoly in the computer industry. The findings of fact clearly described a pattern of corporate behavior that evidenced little respect for antitrust law or public sentiment. Though the proposed remedies themselves may be adequate, the enforcement measures will not provide enough incentive for Microsoft to fundamentally alter its behavior. History demonstrates that Microsoft will not alter its behavior unless it is clearly in its competitive interests to do so. The proposed remedies attempt to force Microsoft to change its behavior in order to reduce its power in the market place. This will not succeed.
The only measures that can be effective are those that immediately change the competitive landscape, and then free Microsoft to struggle for power in this new, more level playing field. I agree with the court that a structual remedy is cumbersome and not likely to be effective. A technilogical remedy, with objective, quantifiable measures, is the only remedy that can be both effective and in the public's interest.
The competitive advantages of an operating system monopoly are twofold. First, Microsoft negotiates from a very powerful position with OEMs and ISPs. Second, their application software can be developed with special knowledge of the operating system and (optionally) devivered with the operating system to gain better market penetration. Any remedy must address both of these monopolistic advantages.
While I do not claim to be able to construct a better remedy myself, I think it is clear that any remedy must involve forcing Microsoft to open all of its APIs and file formats. Any time two pieces of MS software communicate out-of-process, the protocol for their communication must be public. Enforcement could come in the form of a court-appointed authority that had the right to demand to see the source code of any MS-published software and compare the documented APIs to the source code. If they were not the same or if the source code is not delivered within a few days, MS should be fined 1/356th of it's profit (this can be calculated after the fact at the end of each quarter) per-day until it satisfies the requirements. This would ensure that the applications of Microsoft's competitors have the same opportunity to succeed on the Windows platform as those of Microsoft itself. Microsoft may maintain its operating systems monopoly, but it will not be able to use to establish new monopolies in other market segments.
Thank you very much for reading and considering my comments.
Regards,
Personal information and summary of industry qualifications
There's an enlish-language article on the subject at New Scientist:9 91783
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99
To be overly general, I think that hackers fall, more or less, into one of two categories: Hackers (making something cool happen) and Architects (building something elegant). This may just be my prejudice, but I think there's a general trend for young hackers to start out Hacking. As they get older, some become Architects, and some stay Hackers. I would be interested to hear your perspective on this. Which do you find yourself doing/enjoying more, making cool things happen without much regard for elegance or building elegant structures at the cost of some "coolness"? I realize that everyone falls somewhere in between the two extremes, but which do you feel yourself most aligned to? How has this feeling changed over time for you? Do you think this is a result of your education, resources available to you, your age, or something else? Thanks.
IANAL, and I don't even know any, so I make no claims as to the legal feasibility or implications of the following.
Something like a Patent Sharing Organization might be a viable, market-driven (as opposed to legislated) solution to the patent problem. The only membership requirement for this org would be to allow free use of all one's patents to other members. If such an organization attained a critical mass, being a member (hence having access to a very large selection of patents) would provide a greater competitive advantage than keeping patents to oneself (esp., stupid patents). Sort of GPL/OSS for patents.
Attaining critical mass might be hard. But then, it seems to face many of the same hurdles as the OSS movement, which has obviously overcome them.
There are certainly some issues with this. Some way is needed to allow for legitimate patents, for example. Perhaps, in Internet Time, a six month patent allowance might make sense.
Has anyone tried something like this? Does anyone with legal experience have some insight into the potential problems with such an organization?
They could place some recently dead organic matter in the capsule. Hopefully, those who find it would know about radio carbon dating and date the capsule using whatever calendar they like.