🚀 go-pugleaf

Some more antitrust news from Salon.com:

Scott Rosenberg pulls no punches:
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2001/11/02/microsoft_settlement/index.html

"The Justice Department's settlement mocks antitrust law and leaves
Microsoft free to ravage new markets at will."

And Damien Cave, Katharine Mieszkowski and Andrew Leonard compiled this
piece:

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/11/02/microsoft_settlement_reacts/index.html

Eben Moglen, Columbia University law professor and counsel to the Free
Software Foundation writes:

   The settlement doesn't affect that reality at all. It hasn't done
   anything that would stop Microsoft from engaging in most of the kinds
   of conduct that the Justice Department found to be illegal.

   ...

   There are [also] several provisions designed by Microsoft and accepted
   by an indifferent or careless government.

   Sections III-D and E say that Microsoft must document its APIs within
   reasonable time, for ISVs [independent software vendors], "for the sole
   purpose of interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product."
   Not, in other words, to allow a competing Non-Microsoft Operating
   System Product to interoperate with Windows applications. This is
   designed to make it possible for Microsoft to deny information to
   developers of [free software like] GNU and Linux [who create products
   that are not designed solely to work with Windows.]

   III-I(5) says that [developers and hardware manufacturers] "may be
   required to grant to Microsoft on reasonable and nondiscriminatory
   terms a license to any intellectual property rights it may have
   relating to the exercise of their options or alternatives provided by
   this Final Judgment; the scope of such license shall be no broader than
   is necessary to insure that Microsoft can provide such options or
   alternatives." Microsoft will use this to argue that code under the GNU
   General Public License (GPL) [which protects such software as GNU and
   Linux] must be licensed to it on non-GPL terms, so they can use the
   code in their own programs without having to GPL their programs.

***** I missed this second point [III-I(5)] Please read it and understand
the implications. *****


Norman Hawker, associate professor at Western Michigan University Law
School and a research fellow at American Antitrust Institute labels this
as "...a travesty and I think it's appalling. The government had its
greatest antitrust victory in nearly a century this summer with the
unanimous decision from the Court of Appeals. And now Microsoft is getting
off without even the faintest slap on the wrist."

   The most egregious example of this would be the fact that there's no
   provision for penalizing Microsoft if they fail to comply with the
   order. All it says is that the order will be extended if they don't
   comply, but if you're not obeying it now, what difference does it make
   if the order stays in place for a few more years?

   ...

   The government was negotiating from a strong position. Microsoft, when
   they saw this settlement must, have thought it was raining pennies from
   heaven. It's rainwater turned into beer with the government agreeing to
   these terms. It's just amazing to me that they would agree to the
   weakest terms when coming from the strongest position.

Regards,
Adam