From: Ross A. Finlayson (raf@tiki-lounge.com)
Date: Mon Nov 08 1999 - 02:19:17 MST
Chris Hibbert wrote:
> ...
>
> In the Microsoft case, the judge has given his interpretation of what
> happened, and he's couched it in terms of the laws he expects to apply. It
> seems pretty clear what laws apply in the situation he's described. He has
> tremendous leeway in determining remedies. (The papers keep saying that's "a
> euphemism for penalties", but I think they're wrong. He can't just order
> fines or jail, he has to prescribe something that will apparently change the
> practices he says have occurred.)
>
> Chris
>
> --
> Chris Hibbert It is easy to turn an aquarium into fish soup, but
> hibbert@netcom.com not so easy to turn fish soup back into an aquarium.
> -- Lech Walesa on reverting to a market economy.
>
> http://discuss.foresight.org/~hibbert/home.html
Well, I think step is making public all information relevant to this operating
system, which is the linchpin and basis of market control. Any other software
vendor that would write software and sell it to the large market of users of
Windows operating systems has to bludgeon through this monolithic layer,
architected and orchestrated by Microsoft.
First this means tools. It's impossible, more or less, as discussed under
programming tools, to develop software for Microsoft machines without buying yet
more Microsoft software. So, there should be free compilers. This is a handful
of programs that are not currently available either a: generally for free or b:
free to any licensor of a Windows OS, ie, anyone running Windows, which was more
than likely pre-installed on the machine wholly purchased by the user.
Secondly it means access to the operating system. If it is so that software
products are impinged by not having access to system level source code, then they
should (have access to the complete source code).
Thirdly, it means total documentation, disclosure, as it were, of all features
of the operating system.
I think people often think of antitrust regulation in regards to Ma Bell, which
brought us AT&T and Baby Bells. Along those lines would be MS-Windows,
MS-Office, MS-Explorer, besides the facts of MS-NBC and MS-Grocery. (Multiple
Sclerosis never had it so good.) In my insignificant opinion, this would not be
effective and would yield an unenforceable corporate reorganization with little
or no change in practices.
There is a term "convergence" which is often applied to the oncoming catalyzation
of the eponymous convergence of broadcast, Internet, and media technologies.
This is off the track from MS issues (except for MS-coax), but when it comes to
Internet access, there will soon be a boon of localized monopolistic point to
point providers, it should be required that they offer access to their networks,
just like long distance and local telcos for phones.
People often note these days some advent of the concept of Internet time, or I
guess in a non-validating use of the contemporary meme notation <Internet time>,
wherein developments and advancements take place at a much faster rate than in
times previous. This point is geared towards some issues like public access to
privately founded communications networks, and fair use of same. The tradeoff is
de facto monopolistic state versus constitutional, legal grant of competitive
access, and what timeframe is required to not discourage these private
innovators. Correspondingly to this theme of Internet time, it's less time than
it was.
Well, back to the subject of this thread and the quoted material, now that a
judge, after lengthy deliberation in a trial with some note of forged video
evidence, has declared company M which will remain nameless guilty of
monopolistic practices, or what have you, what happens next? There are appeals,
which barring some technicality are likely to uphold the court's decision. Will
it be like Bill Clinton's impeachment, where nothing changed? What was he
impeached for anyways, was it getting fellated in his office or accepting
campaign contributions from the Chinese military? Is it in M's better interests
to reorganize now and carry on rather than reorganize later? I.E., would this
avoid some kind of double-monopoly-jeapordy at a later point?
For many, it's an issue that is close to consider, for we use Microsoft products,
for which we have paid, although for the most part this payment starts as only
the intangible license, as opposed to purchase, when the OS comes bundled with a
PC purchase. This is only considering the use of the PC OS, and is not
encompassing of the much more lucrative (predatory) field, that of business
software and the higher priced operating systems, ala NT. I'm sure there is
something buried in the fine license print about it, but if the operating system
interferes with the best way to use the hardware, that is dang near wrong.
The issue of how to encourage competition is a prickly one. Enabling others to
rebrand and sell MS products like Linux is out of the question. Generally it's
done without rebranding, anyways, those that remarket MS products have little
reason to not do so, besides the fact that it is in Microsoft's rights to pursue
their legal rights with regards to these intangible software goods which can be
reproduced at zero margin, thus for which any claim of individual value is
arguable. Reorganization of the software modules is moot, it is unenforceable,
as opposed to splitting a telco's wires geographically, which was probably in the
telco's better interests anyways. They might get along better, in light of some
stories about internal competition.
There have already been competitors in the various software niches that Microsoft
occupies, many have failed where Microsoft metastasized onwards. For each and
any of these, the design and control over the specification, documentation, and
implementation of the underlying operating system has been a key component of the
competition framework.
What is the operating system? It is the software that loads into memory, when
queued by the BIOS, a process that runs for the duration of power being applied
to the CPU. This process or Turing state works through the BIOS to access
hardware devices attached to the CPU such as storage, input, network, display,
sound, etc. The process enables other processes to run, and provides the system
services to these processes. The OS is not necessarily an MP3 player, nor a web
browser. It's not necessarily a windowing system either, but's it's not feasible
to start at least one OS without it.
So what could we encourage Penfield Jackson to advise? I would suggest starting
with that which is most damaging to any would-be competitor, control of the
operating system. What are other's suggestions?
Last but not least, no small respect is due a company which has made itself a
monopolist in "Internet time."
Ross Finlayson
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:44 MST