On Mar 9, 8:20 pm, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The value of regulation in a monopoly market
> ,----[ Quote
> | Why did the EC order Microsoft to disclose its protocols to rivals?
> |
> | Because it had misused its monopoly position to illegally maintain a
> | dominant position in the market.
The irony is that none of the antitrust efforts addressed the legal
contracting practices. No attempt was made to review EULA terms, OEM
license agreements, or the other network of legal agreements which
were probably illegal.
> | In order to remedy that situation, the EC has an obligation to ensure
> | that the interoperability information is available to everyone at a
> | fair price.
The irony is that about 90% of these protocols and interoperability
were actually based on freely available public standards which had
been implemented in Open Source Software. The irony is that most of
Microsoft's "enhancements" actually did more damage than good.
> | In order to do this, in my view, it cannot leave the market to decide
> | the value of Microsoft?s protocols (although a third party group could
> | be argued for).
> `----
The sad reality is that the value of Microsoft's protocols is actually
a negative value. Microsoft's "enhancements" have been linked to
hundreds of billions of dollars worth of damages and lost time, but
since that's only $200-$2000 per user, and these are "soft dollars"
which are often recovered in the form of unpaid overtime, the actual
cost isn't normally accounted for accurately. The average Windows
user works as much as 10 hours/week in unpaid overtime to recover from
damages related to Microsoft's "back doors".
Of course, it's an academic exercise anyway, since the Microsoft EULA,
OEMLA, and Corporate license agreements, all require the licensee to
indemnify Microsoft against damages, even if Microsoft causes the
damage. At the very best, and end user could get a refund for the
value of the product.
> http://www.businessreviewonline.com/os/archives/2007/03/the_value_of_...
>
> As I said previously, Microsoft paid Novell to swallow
> a bug (admission of
> unfounded guilt). Based on the fact that
> the story below was /advertised/ by
> Microsoft, I suspect they did the same in this case.
> Maybe they even did so
> behind the scenes, just as they engage in extortion methods with large
> business, based on Jeremy Allison's word.
As more of the details about the deal begin to surface it looks like
Microsoft paid Novell about $300 million for a PR stunt. Novell got
the right to use Microsoft's software, but Microsoft ONLY got the
right to use Novell's software, which amounts to about 1/100th of 1%
of Linux.
> They stubbornly try to put a price tag on Free
> software, Samba included. They
> are determined to pay whoever is
> in need of money (e.g. the stagnating
> Novell) to establish legal precedence
> and build fences. Bad, bad, bad.
It looks like Novell got the right to implement Microsoft's technology
using OSS software. For example, Novell can use Microsoft's libraries
with Linux (assuming the customer has a valid OEM license). Novell
users can use ANY version of Windows as a virtual client.
Meanwhile, it looks like the only thing Microsoft got was what?
YAST? IPX/SPX?
Remember, Novell doesn't OWN Linux. They are licensees.
> Related:
>
> Microsoft lands first licensee in EU protocol program
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | The program, which stems from the European Commission's historic
> | March 2004 order, requires Microsoft to license its protocol
> | technology at "reasonable and nondiscriminatory" terms. A goal
> | of the program is to provide all licensees, even Microsoft rivals,
> | with the ability to create server-based products that will
> | interoperate with Microsoft's technology.
> `----
The problem is that Microsoft's terms are unreasonable. The will
grant licensees permission to view the technology, but ONLY if they
promise to use the information derived exclusively for Windows
clients. Instead of breaking the monopoly, the license terms are
actually designed to extend Microsoft's control beyond the monopoly to
the control of Linux and OSS developers.
> http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-6165514.html
|
|
