[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/philosophy ms-doj-tunney.html
|
From: |
Yavor Doganov |
|
Subject: |
www/philosophy ms-doj-tunney.html |
|
Date: |
Sat, 05 Jul 2008 14:33:51 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: Yavor Doganov <yavor> 08/07/05 14:33:51
Modified files:
philosophy : ms-doj-tunney.html
Log message:
Use entities for the special symbols.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/ms-doj-tunney.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.9&r2=1.10
Patches:
Index: ms-doj-tunney.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/ms-doj-tunney.html,v
retrieving revision 1.9
retrieving revision 1.10
diff -u -b -r1.9 -r1.10
--- ms-doj-tunney.html 19 Jun 2007 00:02:59 -0000 1.9
+++ ms-doj-tunney.html 5 Jul 2008 14:33:35 -0000 1.10
@@ -21,25 +21,25 @@
<p>I am Professor of Law at Columbia University Law School in New
York, and General Counsel (<i>pro bono publico</i>) of the Free
- Software Foundation, a non-profit §501(c)(3) corporation organized
- under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, with its
- headquarters in Boston. I make this statement under the provisions
- of 15 U.S.C. § 16(d) concerning the Proposed Revised Final Judgment
- (hereinafter “the Settlement”) in <i>United States
- v. Microsoft Corp</i>.</p>
+ Software Foundation, a non-profit §501(c)(3) corporation
+ organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, with
+ its headquarters in Boston. I make this statement under the
+ provisions of 15 U.S.C. § 16(d) concerning the Proposed Revised
+ Final Judgment (hereinafter “the Settlement”)
+ in <i>United States v. Microsoft Corp</i>.</p>
<p>The remedies sought to be effected in the Settlement are, in
their broad outline, appropriate and reasonable measures for the
abatement of the illegal conduct proven by the United States at
trial. The goal of such remedies is to require that Defendant
- affirmatively assist the restoration of competition in the market
- in which the Defendant has been shown to have illegally
- maintained a monopoly in violation of 15 U.S.C. §2. The remedies
- embodied in the Settlement would substantially achieve that goal,
- appropriately furthering the Government's pursuit of the public
- interest, if the Settlement were amended to rectify certain
- details one-sidedly favorable to the Defendant's goal of
- continuing its illegal monopoly.</p>
+ affirmatively assist the restoration of competition in the market in
+ which the Defendant has been shown to have illegally maintained a
+ monopoly in violation of 15 U.S.C. §2. The remedies embodied in
+ the Settlement would substantially achieve that goal, appropriately
+ furthering the Government's pursuit of the public interest, if the
+ Settlement were amended to rectify certain details one-sidedly
+ favorable to the Defendant's goal of continuing its illegal
+ monopoly.</p>
<p>Defendant—in the interest of continuing unabated its
illegal monopoly—has artfully drafted certain clauses of the
@@ -49,14 +49,14 @@
<p>The District Court found that the Defendant had illegally
maintained a monopoly in the market for Intel-compatible PC
- operating systems. (Findings of Fact, November 19, 1999, ¶19.) The
- mechanism of that monopolization, the court found, was the attempt
- to establish exclusive control of “application program
+ operating systems. (Findings of Fact, November 19, 1999, ¶19.)
+ The mechanism of that monopolization, the court found, was the
+ attempt to establish exclusive control of “application program
interfaces” (“APIs”) to which applications
developers resort for operating system services, so as to prevent
the possibility of “cross-platform” development
threatening Defendant's operating systems monopoly. (Findings of
- Fact, ¶80 and <i>passim</i>.)</p>
+ Fact, ¶80 and <i>passim</i>.)</p>
<p>The Settlement accordingly makes appropriate provision to
require Microsoft to provide access to full and complete
@@ -88,12 +88,12 @@
developers of software whose purpose it is to make competing
Intel-compatible PC operating systems. Only those who make programs
that interoperate with Windows Operating Systems Products may
- receive such information. Under § III(I)(3), an applications
+ receive such information. Under § III(I)(3), an applications
developer who has received licensed information concerning
Defendant's APIs could be prohibiting from sharing that information
with a maker of a competing Intel-compatible PC operating system,
for the purpose of interoperating with that competing product. Under
- §III(I)(2), if a potential competitor in the market for
+ §III(I)(2), if a potential competitor in the market for
Intel-compatible PC operating systems also makes applications
products, it can even be prohibited from using licensed information
it receives in order to make those applications interoperate with
@@ -103,7 +103,7 @@
market turns out, after Defendant's careful manipulation, to be a
provision for sharing information “solely” with people
other than competitors in the monopolized market. The same language
- has been inserted into §III(E), thus similarly perverting the
+ has been inserted into §III(E), thus similarly perverting the
intention of the Settlement with respect to Communications
Protocols.</p>
@@ -143,49 +143,49 @@
operating system from the cycle of consumer preferences and
developer incentives that, when fueled by Windows' enormous
reservoir of applications, prevents non-Microsoft operating systems
- from competing.” (Findings of Fact, November 5, 1999, ¶50.)
- (referring, confusingly, to the combination of GNU, Linux, and other
- programs simply as “Linux.”) The District Court
- correctly found that in order to compete effectively with Defendant
- in the desktop operating systems market for Intel-compatible PCs,
- systems equipped with the free software operating system should be
- able to interoperate with “the enormous reservoir” of
- Windows applications.</p>
+ from competing.” (Findings of Fact, November 5, 1999,
+ ¶50.) (referring, confusingly, to the combination of GNU,
+ Linux, and other programs simply as “Linux.”) The
+ District Court correctly found that in order to compete effectively
+ with Defendant in the desktop operating systems market for
+ Intel-compatible PCs, systems equipped with the free software
+ operating system should be able to interoperate with “the
+ enormous reservoir” of Windows applications.</p>
<p>There is no inherent barrier to such interoperation, only an
- artificial barrier illegally erected by Defendant. If Defendant
- were required to release information concerning its APIs to the
- developers of free software, GNU, Linux, the X windowing system,
- the WINE Windows emulator, and other relevant free software could
- interoperate directly with all applications that have been
- developed for Windows. Anyone could execute Windows applications
- programs bought from any developer on Intel-compatible PC's
- equipped with the competing free software operating system. And
- because, as the District Court found, the cost structure of free
- software is very much lower than Defendant's, the competing
- operating system product is and would continue to be available at
- nominal prices. (Findings of Fact, November 5, 1999, ¶ 50.)</p>
+ artificial barrier illegally erected by Defendant. If Defendant were
+ required to release information concerning its APIs to the
+ developers of free software, GNU, Linux, the X windowing system, the
+ WINE Windows emulator, and other relevant free software could
+ interoperate directly with all applications that have been developed
+ for Windows. Anyone could execute Windows applications programs
+ bought from any developer on Intel-compatible PC's equipped with the
+ competing free software operating system. And because, as the
+ District Court found, the cost structure of free software is very
+ much lower than Defendant's, the competing operating system product
+ is and would continue to be available at nominal prices. (Findings
+ of Fact, November 5, 1999, ¶ 50.)</p>
<p>That would be too effective a form of competition, from the
- Defendant's point of view. For this reason, Defendant has
- included in the Settlement the terms that exclude from API
- documentation precisely those to whom it would be most logically
- addressed: potential competitors seeking access to the
- monopolized market. If the Settlement were enforced according to
- its intention, the result would be immediate and vigorous
- competition between Defendant and the parties against whom, the
- District Court found, Defendant was illegally maintaining a
- barrier. The Settlement should be amended to level that barrier,
- which the current language inserted by Defendant artfully
- maintains. The language of §§III(D) and III(E) should be amended
- to require Defendant to release timely and accurate API
- information to all parties seeking to interoperate programs with
- either Windows Operating System Products or applications written
- to interoperate with Windows Operating System Products.</p>
+ Defendant's point of view. For this reason, Defendant has included
+ in the Settlement the terms that exclude from API documentation
+ precisely those to whom it would be most logically addressed:
+ potential competitors seeking access to the monopolized market. If
+ the Settlement were enforced according to its intention, the result
+ would be immediate and vigorous competition between Defendant and
+ the parties against whom, the District Court found, Defendant was
+ illegally maintaining a barrier. The Settlement should be amended to
+ level that barrier, which the current language inserted by Defendant
+ artfully maintains. The language of §§III(D) and III(E)
+ should be amended to require Defendant to release timely and
+ accurate API information to all parties seeking to interoperate
+ programs with either Windows Operating System Products or
+ applications written to interoperate with Windows Operating System
+ Products.</p>
<p>For the same reason, Defendant's attempt to continue denying the
free software development community access to its APIs through the
- imposition of royalty requirements, in §III(I)(1), should be
+ imposition of royalty requirements, in §III(I)(1), should be
removed. As the District Court recognized, free software development
means that everyone in the world has access, without payment of
royalties or prohibition of redistribution, to the “source
@@ -203,18 +203,18 @@
volunteers, the Settlement is craftily perverted into a mechanism
whereby Defendant can continue to withhold API information so as to
preclude the operations of potential competitors. The Settlement
- should be modified so that §III(I)(1) requires reciprocity, by
+ should be modified so that §III(I)(1) requires reciprocity, by
precluding the imposition of royalties on developers who make their
own APIs fully available without payment of royalties or license
- fees, and so that §III(I)(3) precludes limitation on sublicensing,
- and requires Defendant to release API information on terms
- reciprocal to those on which competitors make their own API
+ fees, and so that §III(I)(3) precludes limitation on
+ sublicensing, and requires Defendant to release API information on
+ terms reciprocal to those on which competitors make their own API
information available.</p>
<p>In one additional provision Defendant has attempted to subvert
the intention of the Settlement in order to preclude effective
competition by the Intel-compatible free software operating
- system. Under § III(J)(1), Defendant may refuse to disclose
+ system. Under § III(J)(1), Defendant may refuse to disclose
“portions of APIs or Documentation or portions or layers of
Communications Protocols the disclosure of which would compromise
the security of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital
@@ -238,16 +238,16 @@
extending or replacing the existing public protocols of electronic
commerce, and then use its monopoly position to exclude the free
software operating system from use of that de facto industry
- standard embodied in its new unpublicized APIs and
- Protocols. Defendant then goes further in § III(J)(2), according to
- itself the right to establish criteria of “business
- viability” without which it may deny access to
- APIs. Considering that its primary competition results from a
- development community led by non-profit organizations and relying
- heavily on non-commercial and volunteer developers, one can only
- conclude that Defendant is once again seeking the appearance of
- cooperation with the rule of law, while preparing by chicane to deny
- its injured competitors their just remedy.</p>
+ standard embodied in its new unpublicized APIs and Protocols.
+ Defendant then goes further in § III(J)(2), according to itself
+ the right to establish criteria of “business viability”
+ without which it may deny access to APIs. Considering that its
+ primary competition results from a development community led by
+ non-profit organizations and relying heavily on non-commercial and
+ volunteer developers, one can only conclude that Defendant is once
+ again seeking the appearance of cooperation with the rule of law,
+ while preparing by chicane to deny its injured competitors their
+ just remedy.</p>
<p>The Free Software Foundation not only authors and distributes
the GNU General Public License, and in other ways facilitates the
@@ -302,7 +302,7 @@
<p>
Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2007/06/19 00:02:59 $
+$Date: 2008/07/05 14:33:35 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
| [Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- www/philosophy ms-doj-tunney.html,
Yavor Doganov <=