On Wed, 24 Oct 2001 18:36:43 -0700, "John Hokanson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Wednesday 24 October 2001 07:53 am, you wrote:
> > Matt Greer wrote:
> > > You missed the point. MS isn't required to create apps through
> > > the Windows API. They've got the whole run of the OS, considering
> > > they made it. Which means they can do things no one else can. So
> > > IE has advantages over Netscape because of this.
> > >
> > > Although I don't see a problem with that. Netscape is perfectly
> > > welcome to create their own OS and compete with Windows if they
> > > want to, same with anyone else. MS has every right to use their
> > > internal advantage against their competition.
> >
> > Re: "MS has every right to use their internal advantage against
> > their competition."
> >
> > Matt,
> >
> > I don't want to start a flame war, but I think everyone who reads
> > this should recognize that is your opinion, and there are other
> > opinions, as is clear from the antitrust cases against Microsoft.
> >
> > I don't know the law well enough to state this clearly or
> > correctly, but the government somehow reserves the right to limit
> > the behavior of monopolies (or almost monopolies) under certain
> > circumstances -- maybe when that monopoly severely restricts
> > competition, or maybe depending on the methods used to obtain and
> > maintain that monopoly, or maybe both.
> >
> > I won't go any further except to say there are quite a few people
> > that believe that some of the methods used to obtain and maintain
> > their monopoly were unfair and possibly illegal.
> >
>
> Point taken.
>
> But I think the problem I and a lot of other people have is this
> silly notion that Microsoft MUST make its source code and
> APIs open to anybody. I say that's crap. Not every OS can be
> like Linux, and that's not what the government's case is about.
> You *CAN* close off your product to outside developers who
> failt to attain your expressed permission. It *IS* legal. This was
> a battle largely fought and lost in the 1980s.
Once again, you are confusing source sode with APIs. It is perfectly possible to
have a closed-source OS with open APIs. In fact, Microsoft seems to be the
_only_ major closed-source OS provider that is closing its APIs.
Microsoft are perfectly welcome to put whatever license they want on their code
- nobody is disputing that. However, the playing-field must be made level so as
to promote competition and 'innovation' (to use one of MS's favourite terms).
This can be done through open APIs. Microsoft may still have a head-start since
they designed the OS, but this lead shall erode as other programmers become more
proficient with the open APIs.
Do you really think that Microsoft managed to come from being a tiny
insignificant company to beating IBM, Lotus, Wordperfect and Novel in all their
main markets by _not_ being anti-competitive? Secret APIs (again, _not_ to be
confused with closed-source) allowed MS to leverage their special knowledge of
the OS into dominance in numerous applications markets. This is *NOT* legal, and
nor should it be, for it is anti-competitive. The US courts have found that to
be the case.
> I think if you're going to make a case against Microsoft, you
> should focus on the more tangible legal aspects such as
> price-fixing and bundling. AFAIK, this is what the Justice
> Department's case is largely about.
Actually the Justice Department didn't really focus on the root of the problem
at all. There is nothing wrong with including a browser with an OS, but the
problem was that MS never give the user the _option_ of whether they wanted it
or not.
The main problem, among others, is Microsoft's behind-the-scenes bullying of
companies (including heavyweights like IBM and Compaq) in regards to licensing.
MS tell their resellers and OEMs the equivalent of "if you bundle with a
computer or sell any application that competes with Microsoft products, we shall
revoke your license to sell Microsoft products altogether." Resellers and OEMs
have no choice in this 'all-or-none' threat, since few people would buy their
products if they didn't include Windows. Hitachi, for example, tried to make
their systems dual-bootable into Windows and BeOS. Just before their systems
were about to ship, Microsoft reminded them of this license clause. With the
shipping date nearing, Hitachi didn't have time to fully remove BeOS from their
machines, so they simply removed the BeOS boot option in the bootloader. BeOS
was hidden on the hard drive, and consumers were forced to visit the Hitachi
website to find out how to activate it.
Nevertheless, even without focussing on the major issues and instead
concentrating on rather mundane topics like bundling, the DOJ still won the
case.
> - John
--
Sridhar Dhanapalan
"We will get the source code up on the Web -
anybody who specifically wants a copy can just ask."
-- Bill Gates
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
