Antitrust Division, U.S. D.O.J.
We the people, in order to promote fair opportunity for competition
in the computer software and operating system markets, want to know why
Microsoft is allowed to continue is predatory practices within the
software market.
Of greatest concern is Microsoft's continued ability to eliminate
competition and harm consumers who choose Linux as a competitior to
Microsoft. The following article by Bruce Perens exemplifies our
complaint that Microsoft is still able to harm competition and consumers
with its practices.
The issues contained within the article deserve your departments
consideration and special attention. Mr. Perens article follow below the
signature.
--
David C. Rankin, J.D., P.E.
RANKIN * BERTIN, PLLC
1329 N. University, Suite D4
Nacogdoches, Texas 75961
(936) 715-9333
(936) 715-9339 fax
****************************************************************
The Microsoft penalty that isn't
By Bruce Perens
April 15, 2002, 12:00 PM PT
In its antitrust settlement with the Justice Department and nine states,
Microsoft promised to publish technology that would allow competing
products to interoperate with Windows. But Microsoft has sidestepped the
penalty by crafting a technology license that excludes the company's
only viable competitor.
Linux, which was described by Windows Division Vice President Brian
Valentine as the long-term threat against Microsoft's core business, is
banned from interoperating with its common Internet file system,
otherwise known as Windows File and Printer Sharing.
The Microsoft license specifically excludes software under the General
Public License, commonly known as the GPL. The GPL is the software
license used by Linux and by SAMBA, a popular open-source program that
allows non-Microsoft systems to share files and printers with Windows.
Microsoft has also banned software under the Lesser General Public
License, or LGPL. That license is used by the Mozilla Web browser, the
GNOME graphical desktop, and many of the software libraries shipped with
Linux. The GPL and LGPL are the most popular licenses used for
open-source software, and cover tens of thousands of free programs.
A second Microsoft license on extensions used in Windows 2000 and
Windows XP will require royalty payments, excluding all software
produced by the open-source developer community. Because Microsoft has
patented features of the file-sharing protocol, open-source developers
who implement the protocol could be sued for infringement.
Microsoft is likely to use this same license on future "standards,"
embedding patented features in the standards and excluding free software
like Linux from use of the patents. While patented features in file
sharing would handicap Linux from being able to exchange files over an
office LAN (local area network), similar future efforts could ban
open-source tools like OpenOffice and AbiWord from operating with
documents created using Microsoft Office, and Web browsers like Mozilla
from viewing Web sites produced with Microsoft software.
It's the share-and-share-alike provision of the GPL that Microsoft can't
accept--the requirement that modified versions of software under the
license be available for anyone to further distribute and modify. But
this is the aspect of the license that made Linux a threat to Microsoft
while even the mighty IBM could not dent Microsoft's monopoly with its
OS/2 operating system.
The GPL, brainchild of MacArthur "genius" grant recipient Richard
Stallman and his GNU Project, creates a fair partnership among many
thousands of independent software developers that is difficult for
Microsoft to swallow. Microsoft previously responded by influencing
government and universities to choose weaker OS licenses that lack the
share-and-share-alike provision.
Because Microsoft can make proprietary and patented enhancements to
software under the weaker licenses, it can apply its embrace-and-enhance
strategy: Microsoft introduces incompatibility into the Microsoft
version of the software, and forces the public version of the software
out of the market because it won't interoperate with the Windows
version. Only a vendor that dominates the market could use such a
strategy to maintain its monopoly. The GPL-licensed Linux system is the
only one that has been able to make a dent in that monopoly.
Microsoft executives justify their position with the mantra, "We are for
strong intellectual-property protection." But only when it's to
Microsoft's advantage; otherwise, Microsoft wouldn't be pressuring
others to weaken their open-source licensing. Even during the penalty
phase of their antitrust prosecution, the company still can't settle for
a piece of the software industry pie. Although Microsoft's compromise
with the U.S. Department of Justice is crafted to make it seem that a
competitor could enter, it still leaves Microsoft owning the whole pie.
This situation also illustrates the dichotomy of software patents versus
copyright. Copyright laws protect your rights to the software that
you've created. Even the OS advocates use copyright law to enforce their
share-and-share-alike provisions.
In contrast, software patents create a legal monopoly that allows the
holder to prevent someone else from creating and distributing their own
software. If software patents were awarded justly, they might not be
quite so bad. But according to patent expert Greg Aharonian, 95 percent
of software patent claims are not inventions at all, and should never
have been awarded. Blame the U.S. patent office, which rewards its
examiners for awarding patents, not denying them, and gives them only a
few hours to examine each application.
When an open-source developer is prosecuted under an invalid patent
claim, can he prove that the patent is invalid or does not apply? The
legal fees for a patent defense often exceed a million dollars. The
little open-source developer will be forced to settle with the big
corporation, regardless of the merits of the case. To foster open-source
development, we need to provide developers with a safe harbor from
software patent prosecution.
What should you do if you aren't happy about Microsoft escaping an
antitrust penalty? Don't be passive about it. Since Microsoft hates the
GPL so much, give them more of it to contend with: Deploy systems like
GNU/Linux as Web servers and other infrastructure, and consider Mozilla,
OpenOffice and Evolution for the desktop. Look around fors oftware
projects that you can place under the GPL: internal tools, research
work, products that you built and then didn't sell--and get your
employer to release them.
But most importantly, let the U.S. Department of Justice and the nine
U.S. states that want to settle with Microsoft know that you won't
tolerate a sham. The remedies in the antitrust case must not exclude
Microsoft's only real competitor.
David Rankin
2002-Apr-17 21:24 UTC
[Samba] Re: [expert] Microsoft - The settlement that isn't
Steven Spears wrote:> > I agree. But I would a couple more names to your list of people we need to > vote out: Bush and Cheney. And believe me, I do everything I can to get these > guys out and stop them from raping our freedoms and selling out to corporate > America. > > Thanks, > > Steve >You know, the true colors of the parties are becoming more tranparent - thank God. The republican mantra of coddling and marketing to the public, on a questionable/ridiculous premise, to the point that the masses followed like cattle being led to pasture is hopefully coming to an end. The "down with big government and taxes, power at the local level, I can speak Spanish too" (no offense) has been nothing more than a thinly veiled cover for concessions for the big $ interests that support it. Oil - "gee, OK let's go drill Alaska", Insurance - "your in good hands" - just don't ever file a claim, health insurance - "Ok, if your wife is killed because an HMO "administrator/nurse" decided that you didn't need the clinical tests that could have saved your wife and mother of your children's life wasn't necessary -- hey, well she was worth no more than $750K adjusted for the rate of annual inflation anyway (Oh, could this be insurance again?).... B.S. is appalling. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating partisan politics in any way. But look to the people, or class of people that are benefitted by an administrations legislation and, --- you make your own decision. That's what the process is all about. But for God's sake, don't let a slick marketing campaign decide the issues for you. Be informed, ask questions, look at history (I hated history in school), and make a difference!! (How is the Microsoft settlement playing out anyway?) The entire political debate issues are largely capitol B and capitol S. Misinformation to concleal the true agenda. And, the American public says "Gee, they told us that gas supply would be tight during spring break, so I guess the fact that gas prices just went up 20 cents is OK. (Right - no tightening of world supply, no shortages, "but if they told us the supply was tight, I guess it's OK") (Right, and the moon is made of green cheese -- any buyers?) It is up to you to participate enough, and to the extent required, to understand the issues and place your political choice on the person that will advocate your views in the legislation, justice department action, etc.. to bring about the changes you desire. Each of you reading this in the U.S. has the ability to contact you representative and senator (In written form) and make your opinion known. (Yep I am (was) young, didn't think my congressmen would pay attention to anything I had to say) But the truth of the matter is, very few congressmen know (borrowing from a Texas term) "shit-from-shineola" regarding Linux, Open Source, or the barriers being erected to its moving forward. As a test, how many reading know: (1) Who their State Representative is, their address and phone? (2) Who their State Senator is, their addresses and phone? (3) Who their National Representative is, their address and phone? (4) Who their National Senators are, their addresses and phone? Further, how may reading have contacted or written any of the above "in your entire life?" None of this is critical of anyone. The point is -- We can all make a difference! The old adage that the U.S. works by majority rule is a complete fallacy. Nobody except the moneyed ($) interest actually participate. The reality of the situation is that policy in the U.S. is actually controlled by the vocal "minority" of those that participate in the process. The opportunity is there to be the vocal minority if you just stand up. So, what is all of the ranting about? Very simple in summation --- BE THE VOCAL MINORITY AND -- YOU WILL BE HEARD !!! Why do I write? I'm getting older. I'm a lawyer. I deal with this crap more than I want to. But in doing so, having been involved with the GPL/open source community (I'm a nerd engineer as well) I know with the following that Linux/open source has, we can make a difference. I can't do much. I don't make the laws, but if I can help everyone understand how they can make a difference, well then, at least that is something I can try to do. OK -- I'm off my soap box. If you think this is B.S, hit the <del> key. But, if you think there may be something here, the ball is in your court, go make a difference.> On Tuesday 16 April 2002 18:46, Lyvim Xaphir wrote: > > The government has become increasingly intrusive over the last 20 years. > > Taxes are beyond intolerable; they are now insane. Not only that, but > > it's clear that the democrats are out to increase taxes further and do > > away with our personal freedoms; second amendment, digital, and > > otherwise. The one thing that the US government is supposed to do well > > is protect the people. So basically the government has failed miserably > > to do the one thing that we pay taxes and elect our officials to do; and > > that is protect the people. M$ now has a carte blanc to continue it's > > rape. A license for criminal activity. > > > > To top it all off, there is an Enron bomb simmering at the massive M$ > > organization that has been hushed up for years; and continues on to this > > day. A highly respected CPA has been attempting to blow the lid on this > > one since 1999. Yet no one seems to have the balls to bring it into the > > limelight; note that the top execs (including Gates) of M$ have been > > quietly selling off their stock in the company, as you check out the > > following URL: > > > > See: http://www.billparish.com/msftfraudfacts.html > > > > The wrong people have *bought* control of the legislation system. Now > > you guys can get ready for a barrage of laws to be introduced that will > > legislate Linux and open source out of existence. They may not get the > > Consumer Broadband and the DMCA through, but they are going to hit us > > with such a barrage of new legislation that something is probably going > > to be slimed through the cracks. So keep your eyes peeled; it's coming. > > > > The only answer that possibly may be there is to GET THESE PARASITES OUT > > OF OFFICE. Offenders such as Daschel, Gephardt, and Hollings should be > > gotten out of power. This will require conscious political activism. > > > > On Tue, 2002-04-16 at 13:19, David Rankin wrote: > > > Antitrust Division, U.S. D.O.J. > > > > > > We the people, in order to promote fair opportunity for competition > > > in the computer software and operating system markets, want to know why > > > Microsoft is allowed to continue is predatory practices within the > > > software market. > > > > > > Of greatest concern is Microsoft's continued ability to eliminate > > > competition and harm consumers who choose Linux as a competitior to > > > Microsoft. The following article by Bruce Perens exemplifies our > > > complaint that Microsoft is still able to harm competition and consumers > > > with its practices. > > > > > > The issues contained within the article deserve your departments > > > consideration and special attention. Mr. Perens article follow below the > > > signature. > > > > > > -- > > > David C. Rankin, J.D., P.E. > > > RANKIN * BERTIN, PLLC > > > 1329 N. University, Suite D4 > > > Nacogdoches, Texas 75961 > > > (936) 715-9333 > > > (936) 715-9339 fax > > > > > > **************************************************************** > > > > > > The Microsoft penalty that isn't > > > By Bruce Perens > > > April 15, 2002, 12:00 PM PT > > > > > > In its antitrust settlement with the Justice Department and nine states, > > > Microsoft promised to publish technology that would allow competing > > > products to interoperate with Windows. But Microsoft has sidestepped the > > > penalty by crafting a technology license that excludes the company's > > > only viable competitor. > > > > > > Linux, which was described by Windows Division Vice President Brian > > > Valentine as the long-term threat against Microsoft's core business, is > > > banned from interoperating with its common Internet file system, > > > otherwise known as Windows File and Printer Sharing. > > > > > > The Microsoft license specifically excludes software under the General > > > Public License, commonly known as the GPL. The GPL is the software > > > license used by Linux and by SAMBA, a popular open-source program that > > > allows non-Microsoft systems to share files and printers with Windows. > > > Microsoft has also banned software under the Lesser General Public > > > License, or LGPL. That license is used by the Mozilla Web browser, the > > > GNOME graphical desktop, and many of the software libraries shipped with > > > Linux. The GPL and LGPL are the most popular licenses used for > > > open-source software, and cover tens of thousands of free programs. > > > > > > A second Microsoft license on extensions used in Windows 2000 and > > > Windows XP will require royalty payments, excluding all software > > > produced by the open-source developer community. Because Microsoft has > > > patented features of the file-sharing protocol, open-source developers > > > who implement the protocol could be sued for infringement. > > > > > > Microsoft is likely to use this same license on future "standards," > > > embedding patented features in the standards and excluding free software > > > like Linux from use of the patents. While patented features in file > > > sharing would handicap Linux from being able to exchange files over an > > > office LAN (local area network), similar future efforts could ban > > > open-source tools like OpenOffice and AbiWord from operating with > > > documents created using Microsoft Office, and Web browsers like Mozilla > > > from viewing Web sites produced with Microsoft software. > > > > > > It's the share-and-share-alike provision of the GPL that Microsoft can't > > > accept--the requirement that modified versions of software under the > > > license be available for anyone to further distribute and modify. But > > > this is the aspect of the license that made Linux a threat to Microsoft > > > while even the mighty IBM could not dent Microsoft's monopoly with its > > > OS/2 operating system. > > > > > > The GPL, brainchild of MacArthur "genius" grant recipient Richard > > > Stallman and his GNU Project, creates a fair partnership among many > > > thousands of independent software developers that is difficult for > > > Microsoft to swallow. Microsoft previously responded by influencing > > > government and universities to choose weaker OS licenses that lack the > > > share-and-share-alike provision. > > > > > > Because Microsoft can make proprietary and patented enhancements to > > > software under the weaker licenses, it can apply its embrace-and-enhance > > > strategy: Microsoft introduces incompatibility into the Microsoft > > > version of the software, and forces the public version of the software > > > out of the market because it won't interoperate with the Windows > > > version. Only a vendor that dominates the market could use such a > > > strategy to maintain its monopoly. The GPL-licensed Linux system is the > > > only one that has been able to make a dent in that monopoly. > > > > > > Microsoft executives justify their position with the mantra, "We are for > > > strong intellectual-property protection." But only when it's to > > > Microsoft's advantage; otherwise, Microsoft wouldn't be pressuring > > > others to weaken their open-source licensing. Even during the penalty > > > phase of their antitrust prosecution, the company still can't settle for > > > a piece of the software industry pie. Although Microsoft's compromise > > > with the U.S. Department of Justice is crafted to make it seem that a > > > competitor could enter, it still leaves Microsoft owning the whole pie. > > > > > > This situation also illustrates the dichotomy of software patents versus > > > copyright. Copyright laws protect your rights to the software that > > > you've created. Even the OS advocates use copyright law to enforce their > > > share-and-share-alike provisions. > > > > > > In contrast, software patents create a legal monopoly that allows the > > > holder to prevent someone else from creating and distributing their own > > > software. If software patents were awarded justly, they might not be > > > quite so bad. But according to patent expert Greg Aharonian, 95 percent > > > of software patent claims are not inventions at all, and should never > > > have been awarded. Blame the U.S. patent office, which rewards its > > > examiners for awarding patents, not denying them, and gives them only a > > > few hours to examine each application. > > > > > > When an open-source developer is prosecuted under an invalid patent > > > claim, can he prove that the patent is invalid or does not apply? The > > > legal fees for a patent defense often exceed a million dollars. The > > > little open-source developer will be forced to settle with the big > > > corporation, regardless of the merits of the case. To foster open-source > > > development, we need to provide developers with a safe harbor from > > > software patent prosecution. > > > > > > What should you do if you aren't happy about Microsoft escaping an > > > antitrust penalty? Don't be passive about it. Since Microsoft hates the > > > GPL so much, give them more of it to contend with: Deploy systems like > > > GNU/Linux as Web servers and other infrastructure, and consider Mozilla, > > > OpenOffice and Evolution for the desktop. Look around fors oftware > > > projects that you can place under the GPL: internal tools, research > > > work, products that you built and then didn't sell--and get your > > > employer to release them. > > > > > > But most importantly, let the U.S. Department of Justice and the nine > > > U.S. states that want to settle with Microsoft know that you won't > > > tolerate a sham. The remedies in the antitrust case must not exclude > > > Microsoft's only real competitor. > > > > > > > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > > > > Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? > > > Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? > Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com-- David C. Rankin, J.D., P.E. RANKIN * BERTIN, PLLC 1329 N. University, Suite D4 Nacogdoches, Texas 75961 (936) 715-9333 (936) 715-9339 fax